On Wed, 8 Jul 2026 17:44:09 GMT, Sandhya Viswanathan <[email protected]> 
wrote:

>> Jatin Bhateja has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
>> commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Review comments resolution
>
> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c2_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp line 5025:
> 
>> 5023:   // The sign-flip load is unmasked and vpternlogd applies its 
>> immediate bitwise, so
>> 5024:   // doubleword granularity is used uniformly across all source types 
>> (it is semantically
>> 5025:   // equivalent to the quadword form for double here as no mask 
>> register is involved).
> 
> This comment is not required. The destination element size here is 32 bit so 
> we need to generate 32 bit positive saturation values and hence vpternlogd.

Removed

> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/c2_MacroAssembler_x86.cpp line 5339:
> 
>> 5337:                                              XMMRegister xtmp2, 
>> KRegister ktmp1, KRegister ktmp2,
>> 5338:                                              AddressLiteral 
>> float_sign_flip, Register rscratch, int vec_enc) {
>> 5339:   assert(type2aelembytes(to_elem_bt) <= 4, "");
> 
> It will be good to add an assert here for avx512vl() for less than 512 bit 
> vector length. Same in vector_castHF2L_evex.

Addressed

> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/x86.ad line 14731:
> 
>> 14729:   match(Set dst (ConvF2L (ConvHF2F src)));
>> 14730:   effect(TEMP dst, KILL cr, TEMP xtmp);
>> 14731:   ins_cost(50);
> 
> It looks to me that even without the ins_cost(50) and other ins_cost(200) 
> changes, we will still get the direct HF conversion instruction selection. 
> Better to remove the ins_cost related changes in this PR.

If you permit, I would like to retain the static cost adjustments. They are 
functionally harmless and act as a safeguard against cost-driven selection of 
the component matcher rules, which this patch marks as high cost, during the 
labeling phase.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30928#discussion_r3549098175
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30928#discussion_r3549097686
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30928#discussion_r3549093745

Reply via email to