On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 14:18:44 GMT, Jorn Vernee <jver...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> If this struct is passed as an argument, then the load of the second 'half' > of the struct would look like this: It would perhaps be cleaner if in the MSB/LSB comments we said: LSBs are zzz...z LSBs are 000...0 (e.g. avoid to refer to MSBs in the first, since those bytes are not exactly zero, they are the padding bytes) > I think it's worth it in order to have a cleaner contract for the shift ops, > should we want to use them for anything else in the future, but also just to > make them easier to understand for future readers. I agree that having a cleaner contract for the shift binding would prove useful in the long run. If we do that, we can also simplify the binding itself, as it would no longer need an input type? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15417#issuecomment-1705366497 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15417#discussion_r1315010943
