On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 08:20:37 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ahh, that wasn't clear from the context. >> >> That was my fault. I was questioning the benefit of the current layout and >> thought that it was quite hostile to updates like the one we need for >> Valhalla. I don't mind if we revert to the old style, given that I will >> likely not be reading or poking at this code. > > This commits does only what you say. > https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/pull/2068/changes/59c1fc2e7dedd079a61dced4401267dace7c642d > However this still have to touch every line as each column is not wide > enough to fit every entry, so when we now shift some by one and some by two > alignment of all is required. > > @stefank thought, and I agree that if we have to touch every line anyways, > let us just avoid this 4x64 grid and have one bytecode dispatch label per > line, to not have to touch 64 lines in the future when making changes to one > bytecode. (Someone might want to implement the fast bytecodes for zero in the > future.) > > I did push them as two separate commits so I can revert > https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/pull/2068/changes/342cd358eec59e1798ef62d03bbbd3a0e0f79d9d > if you have really strong opinions on this. However I do think that the 4x64 > is worse than the 1x256 solution. I actually look at this code periodically and don't really like scrolling down 256 lines to get to interesting parts. This code doesn't change so the merge with valhalla would be zero if it was 4 bytecodes per line. See if @shipilev has a differing opinion. Sorry for only commenting on the style nit but I found this jarring. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2068#discussion_r2804090633
