On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 13:42:34 GMT, Dan Heidinga <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Stefan Karlsson has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Rename inline_args functions
>
> src/hotspot/share/asm/macroAssembler_common.cpp line 82:
>
>> 80:
>> 81: #ifdef COMPILER2
>> 82: int MacroAssembler::unpack_inline_args(Compile* C, bool receiver_only) {
>
> Suggestion:
>
> int MacroAssembler::unpack_value_args(Compile* C, bool receiver_only) {
>
>
> This should probably get the inline->value treatment as well
Done
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.hpp line 257:
>
>> 255: void set_klass(InstanceKlass* instance);
>> 256:
>> 257: void set_inline_layout_info_klass(int field_index, ValueKlass* vk,
>> TRAPS);
>
> Suggestion:
>
> void set_value_layout_info_klass(int field_index, ValueKlass* vk, TRAPS);
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 73:
>
>> 71: }
>> 72:
>> 73: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>> inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>
> Suggestion:
>
> ValueLayoutInfo* value_field_info =
> value_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 74:
>
>> 72:
>> 73: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>> inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>> 74: ValueKlass* vk = inline_field_info->klass();
>
> Suggestion:
>
> ValueKlass* vk = value_field_info->klass();
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 111:
>
>> 109: if (lk == LayoutKind::REFERENCE) return lk;
>> 110: assert(LayoutKindHelper::is_flat((lk)), "Must be");
>> 111: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>> inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>
> Suggestion:
>
> ValueLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
> value_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>
>
> There's some renaming that was missed in this file.
>
> To be consistent, we should use inline->value in all these places or, if
> we're talking about fields that have been flattened and want a distinction,
> we should use flat rather than inline
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.hpp line 281:
>
>> 279: GrowableArray<FieldInfo>* _field_info;
>> 280: FieldLayoutInfo* _info;
>> 281: Array<InlineLayoutInfo>* _inline_layout_info_array;
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Array<ValueLayoutInfo>* _value_layout_info_array;
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/classfile/verifier.cpp line 2737:
>
>> 2735: else if (opcode == Bytecodes::_invokespecial
>> 2736: && !is_same_or_direct_interface(current_class(),
>> current_type(), ref_class_type)
>> 2737: &&
>> !ref_class_type.equals(VerificationType::reference_type(current_class()->super()->name())))
>> { // super() can never be a value_type.
>
> The rename matches but I don't think this comment is correct any more. Will
> add it to the cleanup bug mentioned above
Thanks
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 329:
>
>> 327: Array<FieldStatus>* _fields_status;
>> 328:
>> 329: Array<InlineLayoutInfo>* _inline_layout_info_array;
>
> Suggestion:
>
> Array<ValueLayoutInfo>* _value_layout_info_array;
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 995:
>
>> 993: static ByteSize init_thread_offset() { return
>> byte_offset_of(InstanceKlass, _init_thread); }
>> 994:
>> 995: static ByteSize inline_layout_info_array_offset() { return
>> byte_offset_of(InstanceKlass, _inline_layout_info_array); }
>
> Suggestion:
>
> static ByteSize value_layout_info_array_offset() { return
> byte_offset_of(InstanceKlass, _value_layout_info_array); }
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 1094:
>
>> 1092: assert(_inline_layout_info_array != nullptr, "Array not created");
>> 1093: return _inline_layout_info_array->at(index);
>> 1094: }
>
> inline -> value needs to be applied here as well
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 1096:
>
>> 1094: }
>> 1095:
>> 1096: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_layout_info_adr(int index) {
>
> Suggestion:
>
> ValueLayoutInfo* value_layout_info_adr(int index) {
>
>
> _inline_layout_info_array -> _value_layout_info_array
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.inline.hpp line 82:
>
>> 80: assert(has_inlined_fields() || has_null_restricted_static_fields(),
>> "Sanity checking");
>> 81: assert(idx < java_fields_count(), "IOOB");
>> 82: ValueKlass* k = inline_layout_info(idx).klass();
>
> Suggestion:
>
> ValueKlass* k = value_layout_info(idx).klass();
Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3925997809
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926003262
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926008430
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926010062
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926011145
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926007865
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926004703
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926011784
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926012372
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926013697
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926012996
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3926014333
