On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:53:15 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use ` JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than
>> `DirectBuffer::address` in the package `java.util.zip` so that `Buffer`
>> instances backed by `MemorySegment` instances can be used.
>>
>> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests on multiple platforms and
>> configurations.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/zip/Adler32.java line 102:
>
>> 100: NIO_ACCESS.acquireSession(buffer);
>> 101: try {
>> 102: adler = updateByteBuffer(adler,
>> NIO_ACCESS.getBufferAddress(buffer), pos, rem);
>
> Hello Per, from what I can see in the implementation of
> `NIO_ACCESS.getBufferAddress(...)` it merely returns `buffer.address`
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Buffer.java#L862.
> So if I understand this change correctly, what we are proposing here is that
> we want to avoid the additional checks (checks related to `MemorySegment`
> that can fail?) that are there in the `DirectBuffer.address()` method
> implementation? Is that what this change is addressing?
All methods in the API that accept a ByteBuffer and access it as DirectBuffer
should have been changed to use the
acquireSession/getBufferAddress/releaseSession. Several were missed, I think
because we didn't have enough tests to exercise the views.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25321#discussion_r2100500374
