On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:12:48 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't think think it is really wrong, but I attempted to make the comment >> clearer. Is that better? > > As far as I can see, there isn't a precedence of mentioning caching or mark > word in this part of the code, so it raises additional questions about the VM > side code that isn't easily visible here. So I think keeping it as simple as > something like the following might be OK: > >> // Return an alternate hash code value if the computed hash code is 0 when >> masked with the hashCodeMask() > > Now that I read this comment, I've a related question - is it guaranteed > that if the alternate hash code is returned, then `typeHash & > U.hashCodeMask()` will not be `0`? Sorry if that was already > implied/answered, but I couldn't spot that detail. Yes, since `typeHash` is the hash of an identity class, so it is guaranteed to be non zero, and to already have the right length, so the masking that happens in the VM won't actually cut anything. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32660#discussion_r4060417844
