On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 17:18:18 GMT, Frederic Parain <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fix a bug in the computation of layouts of abstract value classes inheriting
> fields. There was a missing case in the computation of the starting point for
> the insertion of new fields. The FieldLayoutAnalyzer has been extended to
> always verify that the alignment of the first field is compatible with the
> alignment constraint of the payload. No new test was necessary, the new
> verification in the FieldLayoutAnalyzer is sufficient to detect the issue
> when running the ValueRandomLayoutTest test.
>
> Testing in progress (tier1-4).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Fred
Marked as reviewed by iwalulya (no project role).
src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 1167:
> 1165: }
> 1166: _layout->set_start(_layout->first_field_block());
> 1167: } else {
I noticed we often write `if (!cond) { ... } else { ... }` instead of the
positive form.
For example,` if (!_is_abstract_value)` here. Is there a reason for preferring
this? It feels less readable to me.
-------------
PR Review:
https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2301#pullrequestreview-4066587586
PR Review Comment:
https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2301#discussion_r3043628002
