On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:00:32 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe instead of "flattened object" you meant "holder object that contains > the flattened field payload". Yes, but I changed my mind to handle the payload directly, and `newOop()` creates holder object from it. Thus I updated to do that in new commit. >> `handle` should not be null so far, but I guess this method might be >> required to accept null in future in some case (I cannot explain the example >> now). We should refer null marker in flattened object when we need to handle >> it as null. However SA might want to call `newOop()` for flattened *null* >> object in future because oop instantiation is different from HotSpot in SA. >> >> I can agree we treat as the bug if `null` is passed as `handle` here, and >> will add null check in future if needs. Which do you like? > > i think adding a null check now would be good. If null is ever supported for > a flattened field, SA is going to need additional changes to support it. I updated to check null marker in the payload in new commit. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32310#discussion_r3879455166 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32310#discussion_r3879455552
