On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 19:23:32 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/opto/library_call.cpp line 2418: >> >>> 2416: bool can_access_non_heap = >>> TypePtr::NULL_PTR->higher_equal(_gvn.type(base)); >>> 2417: >>> 2418: assert(!is_non_heap_access || can_access_non_heap, "sanity"); // >>> is_non_heap_access implies can_access_non_heap >> >> Suggestion: >> >> assert(!is_non_heap_access || can_access_non_heap, "is_non_heap_access >> must imply can_access_non_heap"); >> >> Makes the assert a bit more descriptive. > > Well, the condition is sort of self-explanatory. I don't see much value in > expanding the message part. IMO a comment is enough to clarify the intention. I agree. But if you comment the assert you might as well use the comment as a more descriptive error message than "sanity". That in turn makes more descriptive JBS issues, which also makes it easier to search for duplicate issues. I guess is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I won't block on this. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31249#discussion_r3339940764
