On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 06:26:03 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review this change that renames the all-static class `Atomic` to > `AtomicAccess`. The reason for this name change is to allow the introduction > of the new type `Atomic<T>` > ([JDK-8367013](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8367013)). > > The PR has several commits, according to the specific category of change being > made. It may be easier to review the PR by studying these individual commits. > > Although the file "atomic.hpp" is being renamed to "atomicAccess.hpp", I chose > to not rename the various "atomic_<cpu>.*" and "atomic_<os>_<cpu>.*" files. > > There are a number of comments containing the word "Atomic" that I didn't > change. They are generically about atomic operations, and will just as well > serve as referring to the future `Atomic<T>`. > > Testing: mach5 tier1, GHA sanity tests. > This is one of those changes where successful builds indicate the change is > good. I've checked through the patch and it looks good. I found one file that lacked alignment adjustments. > Although the file "atomic.hpp" is being renamed to "atomicAccess.hpp", I chose > to not rename the various "atomic_." and "atomic__." files. Could you motivate why you chose to not do that? src/hotspot/os_cpu/bsd_x86/atomic_bsd_x86.hpp line 43: > 41: template<> > 42: template<typename D, typename I> > 43: inline D AtomicAccess::PlatformAdd<4>::fetch_then_add(D volatile* dest, I > add_value, This file has multiple alignment issues. ------------- Marked as reviewed by stefank (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27135#pullrequestreview-3200998425 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27135#discussion_r2333148324
