Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts [v3]

2024-05-10 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Wed, 8 May 2024 16:39:16 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: >> This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. >> >> From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on >> nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory

Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts [v3]

2024-05-08 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
> This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. > > From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on > nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory > segment base address. The rationale was that the JIT had issue

Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts

2024-05-08 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:32:27 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > * `x_handle` is really meant to provide access to a memory segment modelling > (at least) one struct with layout `POINT_LAYOUT`. As such, the initial > segment/offset combo should (a) be adequately aligned (according to >

Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts [v2]

2024-05-08 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
> This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. > > From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on > nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory > segment base address. The rationale was that the JIT had issue

Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts

2024-05-08 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
On Tue, 7 May 2024 15:42:23 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. > > From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on > nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory >

Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts

2024-05-07 Thread Paul Sandoz
On Tue, 7 May 2024 15:42:23 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. > > From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on > nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory >

Re: RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts

2024-05-07 Thread Per Minborg
On Tue, 7 May 2024 15:42:23 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. > > From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on > nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory >

RFR: 8331734: Atomic MemorySegment VarHandle operations fails for element layouts

2024-05-07 Thread Maurizio Cimadamore
This PR fixes an issue that has crept into the FFM API implementation. >From very early stages, the FFM API used to disable the alignment check on >nested layout elements, in favor of an alignment check against the memory >segment base address. The rationale was that the JIT had issue with