On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 17:24:35 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Kerem Kat has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge >> or a rebase. The pull request now contains two commits: >> >> - Merge branch 'master' into clean-x86-sa-JDK-8351194 >> - Clean up Hotspot SA after 32-bit x86 removal > > src/jdk.hotspot.agent/doc/clhsdb.html line 35: > >> 33: classes <font color="red">print all loaded Java classes with >> Klass*</font> >> 34: detach <font color="red">detach SA from current target</font> >> 35: dis address [ length ] <font color="red">disassemble (amd64) >> specified number of instructions from given address</font> > > Two issues here. The first is I think this was previously incorrect in that > SA supports any architecture for which it can find the hsdis library. You can > probably just drop the amd64 reference or add "requires hsdis". > > The 2nd issue is with amd64 vs x86_64. It seems in SA the two basically have > the same meaning, and you see a lot of C code that checks for both. However, > the java code seems to always just reference AMD64 (but also works with > x86_64). I'm just wondering if this is consistent with the rest of hotspot, > or if we should consider a rename to x86_64 instead of amd64. > > BTW, at the platform level there are some amd64 vs x86_64 differences. The > one I noted is that MacOSX is considered x86_64 and I think linux and windows > are amd64. I'm not sure why, but I recently noted a test that had an > @requires for `os.arch == "amd64"` and that kept is from running on > macosx-x64 until the @requires was expanded to also allow for `os.arch == > "x86_64"`. You should take extra care to make sure that these changes work > with all the x86_64, including macosx. I see some places in the C code where > we check for both amd64 and x86_64 and some where we only check for amd64. > Perhaps x86_64 is not used by SA for macosx. AMD64 is historical, it should all be changed to x86_64. The only place AMD64 is relevant is in actual AMD processor specific code. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27844#discussion_r2437959110
