On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:41:04 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> OK - I will change codeLengthOf as suggested. It was not immediately >> obvious to me that the values would fit in the first 31 bits. > >> OK - I will change codeLengthOf as suggested. It was not immediately obvious >> to me that the values would fit in the first 31 bits. > > In fact, it would even fit into the first 30 bits. There's a top-level > comment that explains the layout of `code` elements. Maybe you can improve it > somehow or carry over that specific part about the length into > `codeLengthOf`. Alternatively, you can always slap `assert` in `codeLengthOf`. Did I understand correctly that the lower 32 bits is expected to contain a length coded on 5 bits - which is expected to be a value in (5..30)? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8656
