On Wed, 11 Nov 2026 09:01:58 GMT, Emanuel Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The test failure on Windows is unrelated to this PR, it's about installing >> MSYS2 on ARM64. > > @erifan Thanks for the explanations. I see that sharing code between scalar > and vector optimizations could be very interesting. > > The question is about the concrete design, naming etc. This discussion goes > beyond what the PR description mentions, and would warrant careful > consideration/prototyping/review. Unfortunately, I'm currently focused on > JDK28 bugs (fixes and reviews). Can you delay this issue to JDK29, when we > may have some more cycles to review such RFEs? > > I would also like to hear @iwanowww @chhagedorn or other more senior > engineers on this issue. > > One thought I just had: Could we split the additional optimization and the > "generic optimization framework" into two RFE's? You can still implement your > vector optimization in a generic way, but restricted to vector files. And > then in a second step do the refactoring, where you demonstrate how we can > use your "generic optimization framework" for both scalar and vector > optimizations. That would allow us to discuss the naming and design in a > proper way, where we can see the final result. An alternative would be to > find existing scalar and vector optimizations where you can already > demonstrate the "generic optimization framework", and then add your new > optimizations in a second RFE. What do you think? @eme64 I think that the current implementation has already covered vectors and vector masks, which makes it generic enough, I also think it is trivial how the framework can be applied to scalar nodes. > One thought I just had: Could we split the additional optimization and the > "generic optimization framework" into two RFE's? You can still implement your > vector optimization in a generic way, but restricted to vector files. And > then in a second step do the refactoring, where you demonstrate how we can > use your "generic optimization framework" for both scalar and vector > optimizations. That would allow us to discuss the naming and design in a > proper way, where we can see the final result. An alternative would be to > find existing scalar and vector optimizations where you can already > demonstrate the "generic optimization framework", and then add your new > optimizations in a second RFE. What do you think? I don't understand what are you trying to suggest here. This PR is restricted to vector nodes and does not concern scalar nodes, which can be addressed in a future RFE. What do you mean by "restricted to vector files"? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32095#issuecomment-6792518357
