On Thu, 21 May 2026 18:30:39 GMT, Andrew Dinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is a "*sub-review pull request*" for the first >> [preview](https://openjdk.org/jeps/12) of [JEP 401: Value Classes and >> Objects](https://openjdk.org/jeps/401), specifically >> [JDK-8317278](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317278): JVM >> implementation of value classes and objects. >> >>> [!NOTE] >>> This pull request and the other sub-review pull requests listed below are >>> based on the "*master pull request*" >>> (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31120). It contains the same full set >>> of code changes as the "*master pull request*" to preserve the full >>> implementation context; the language compiler, JVM, and standard library >>> changes are intertwined. This separate pull requests exist only to >>> subdivide the review and related discussion by area. >> >> Other areas for review: >> >> - [JDK-8317277](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317277): Java language >> implementation of value classes and objects >> - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31121 >> - [JDK-8317279](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317279): Standard >> library implementation of value classes and objects >> - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31123 >> >> Code changes resulting from the review process should be made in >> [`valhalla/lworld`](https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/). >> >> `valhalla/lworld` is currently updated from `jdk/master` whenever a weekly >> [`jdk` tag](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/tags) is created. At that time, >> code changes from `valhalla/lworld` will be propagated to the master pull >> request and to all sub-review pull requests, including this one. >> >> Ultimately, review sign-off will be recorded on the "*master pull request*", >> and this pull request will be closed without integration. >> >> This pull request has a large code surface area and often conflicts with >> `jdk/master` on a daily basis. Refer to >> [`valhalla/lworld`](https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/) for the latest >> state of the project code, keeping in mind that it may lag several days >> behind `jdk/master`. Both repositories may be needed as references during >> review. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/gc/shared/barrierSetNMethod_aarch64.cpp line 208: > >> 206: } >> 207: assert((value & ~bit_mask) == 0, "trying to set bits outside the >> mask"); >> 208: value &= bit_mask; > > I know this is existing code but isn't this overkill? I'm probably biased since I added this, but it seemed like a good choice at the time. The assert was useful during testing, and could catch bugs in the future if the shared code changes again. The masking of the value silently ignores any problems in product builds and you could argue that it isn't needed, but to me it's "defense in depth" and better than changing the assert into a guarantee or simply removing it. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31122#discussion_r3283992418
