On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 04:49:54 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Frederic Parain has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Comment hard coded arguments to is_naturally_aotimic() > > Looks good. > > Me and Axel has been brainstorming about if we could figure out a name that > could help us get rid of this new boolean and at the same time clarify the > code and help prevent bugs like the one that this PR is fixing. The question > whether something is naturally atomic depends on more than the explicit > fields of a value, but rather what a specific value payload where the fields > are residing contains a null-marker or not. I would like to come up with a > name to describe the set of explicit fields described in the value excluding > any potential null-marker. I think that could help clarify the code for the > readers. We haven't managed to come up with a name like that yet, so let's > defer that to the future. > > I find the style used to implement the new is_naturally_atomic quite terse > and hard-to-read, so I've given a suggestion that I think is faster to > understand. It's OK to skip it if you don't like it. Thanks @stefank @Arraying @jsikstro for the reviews. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2361#issuecomment-4327253864
