On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 10:09:58 GMT, erifan <d...@openjdk.org> wrote: >>> Oh I think we still cannot use `BoolTest::negate`, because we cannot >>> instantiate a `BoolTest` object with **unsigned** comparison. >>> `BoolTest::negate` is a non-static function. >> >> I see. Ok. Hmm. I still think that the logic should be in `BoolTest`, >> because that is where the exact implementation of the enum values is. In >> that context it is easier to see why `^4` does the negation. And imagine we >> were ever to change the enum values, then it would be harder to find your >> code and fix it. >> >> Maybe it could be called `BoolTest::negate_mask(mast btm)` and explain in a >> comment that both signed and unsigned is supported. > > Hi @eme64 @theRealAph @XiaohongGong @fg1417 @shqking , could you help take a > look at this PR, thanks
@erifan Sounds good. No rush, it takes as long as it takes. I'll soon be on vacation too and may not respond until mid of October. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24674#issuecomment-3273732881
