On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:21:14 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <cole...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I have to confess that I have no idea what this is trying to show. I'd >> rather have all the UINTX_FORMAT purged and not leave a remnant for these >> two special cases. A function whose name describes what this is trying to >> show would be better. > > @theRealAph added this with the secondary super cache work, but I think it > may have also been meant to be zx because of the leading 0x. So > INTPTR_FORMAT would also work. I don't think we should be mixing uintx types and UINTPTR_FORMAT like that. As I said earlier, this is one that I think probably ought not be changed at all. I think some of the FORMAT macros are useful to avoid inline format directives that resemble line noise, or ugly conditionals like that. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1905076840
