On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:44:13 GMT, Tobias Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/opto/type.cpp line 7333:
>>
>>> 7331:
>>> 7332:
>>> //------------------------------make-------------------------------------------
>>> 7333: const TypeFunc* TypeFunc::make(ciMethod* method, bool is_call, bool
>>> is_osr_compilation) {
>>
>> It is better to have a description for the meaning of `is_call`.
>
> I added a comment explaining the purpose of this method and its arguments.
Thanks, I understand it now.
>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/sharedRuntime.cpp line 2918:
>>
>>> 2916: for (SignatureStream ss(_method->signature());
>>> !ss.at_return_type(); ss.next()) {
>>> 2917: BasicType bt = ss.type();
>>> 2918: if (InlineTypePassFieldsAsArgs && bt == T_OBJECT) {
>>
>> Similarly, this can also be removed.
>
> I added this to address a comment that @fparain had when reading this code:
>> [...] a point that was bothering me was that `InlineTypePassFieldsAsArgs` is
>> tested after the call to ss.as_inline_klass(), this is not obvious when
>> reading the code above but the test is performed in
>> vk->can_be_passed_as_fields() (this is the only thing this method tests)
>> which is called after having poke the system dictionary."
>
> The expensive part here is `ss.as_inline_klass()`, so we definitely want to
> guard this by `InlineTypePassFieldsAsArgs` but since that method is also
> called from other places when `!InlineTypePassFieldsAsArgs &&
> InlineTypeReturnedAsFields`, we can't easily move that check into the method.
> Also, as Fred mentions, it's easier to read when the check is in the caller.
>
> What do you think?
I see, in that case keeping `InlineTypePassFieldsAsArgs` in the caller is more
preferable then.
-------------
PR Review Comment:
https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2339#discussion_r3116734414
PR Review Comment:
https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2339#discussion_r3116739197
