On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:02:53 GMT, Andrew Haley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The general way code flows right now, but not often, is from jdk/master to >> panama-vector/vectorIntrinsics, since most of the development work is in the >> mainline (exceptions to that are the float16 and Valhalla alignment work >> which are large efforts). >> >> I am very reluctant to include all the auto-generated micro benchmarks in >> mainline. There is a huge number of them and i am not certain they provide >> as much value as they did now we have the IR test framework. In may cases, >> given the simplicity of what they measure, they were designed to ensure C2 >> generates the right instructions. The IR test framework is better at >> determining that by testing the right IR nodes are generated - and they get >> run as part of the existing HotSpot test suite. >> >> The IR test framework is of course no substitute, in general, for >> performance tests. A better focus for Vector API performance tests is i >> think Emanuel's work [here](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/28639/) and >> use-cases/algorithms that can be implemented concisely. > >> The IR test framework is better at determining that by testing the right IR >> nodes are generated - and they get run as part of the existing HotSpot test >> suite. > > But as a reviewer I'm not looking at the IR at all, but at the performance. > Hi @theRealAph @PaulSandoz , thanks for your insight! How to synchronize the > JMH micro benchmarks between Panama and the mainline may be a more general > issue that requires further investigation, design, and resources. As for how > to move this PR forward, my idea is to write a new micro benchmark in this PR > to demonstrate the optimization effect of this patch. Would that be > acceptable to you? Sure. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28693#issuecomment-3816786645
