On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:28:32 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> @theRealAph added this with the secondary super cache work, but I think it >> may have also been meant to be zx because of the leading 0x. So >> INTPTR_FORMAT would also work. > > I don't think we should be mixing uintx types and UINTPTR_FORMAT like that. > As I said earlier, this is one that > I think probably ought not be changed at all. I think some of the FORMAT > macros are useful to avoid inline > format directives that resemble line noise, or ugly conditionals like that. Improving on my prior suggestion `"%#.*zx", (2 * BytesPerWord), _secondary_supers_bitmap` Using precision rather than field width, to avoid needing to account for the prefix in the width calculation. But still looking a lot like line noise, and still think it shouldn't be changed. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1905101674
