On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 19:50:36 GMT, Matias Saavedra Silva <matsa...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The current structure used to store the resolution information for >> invokedynamic, ConstantPoolCacheEntry, is difficult to interpret due to its >> ambigious fields f1 and f2. This structure can hold information for fields, >> methods, and invokedynamics and each of its fields can hold different types >> of values depending on the entry. >> >> This enhancement proposes a new structure to exclusively contain >> invokedynamic information in a manner that is easy to interpret and easy to >> extend. Resolved invokedynamic entries will be stored in an array in the >> constant pool cache and the operand of the invokedynamic bytecode will be >> rewritten to be the index into this array. >> >> Any areas that previously accessed invokedynamic data from >> ConstantPoolCacheEntry will be replaced with accesses to this new array and >> structure. Verified with tier1-9 tests. >> >> The PPC port was provided by @reinrich, RISCV was provided by @DingliZhang >> and @zifeihan, and S390x by @offamitkumar. >> >> This change supports the following platforms: x86, aarch64, PPC, RISCV, and >> S390x > > Matias Saavedra Silva has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > s390x NULL to nullptr This obviously breaks arm, since its implementation is missing. I opened https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8305387 to track this. This is unfortunate since it holds work on arm in other areas, in my case for https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10907. > This change supports the following platforms: x86, aarch64, PPC, RISCV, and > S390x I wonder about the explicit exclusion of arm. Every other CPU seems to be taken care of, even those Oracle does not maintain. Just curious, was there a special reason for excluding arm? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12778#issuecomment-1491971108
