On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:47:11 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.cpp line 6592:
>>
>>> 6590:
>>> 6591: // Set the Klass for the field's index
>>> 6592: _inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_index)->set_klass(vk);
>>
>> Should `_inline_layout_info_array` be renamed to `_value_layout_info_array`
>> for consistency with the new naming convention?
>
> I was unsure if InlineLayoutInfo only referred to flattened fields and
> therefore were sort-of better named as InlineLayoutInfo, FlattenedLayoutInfo,
> or ValueLayoutInfo. WDYT?
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions. See
motivation in main thread.
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.hpp line 257:
>>
>>> 255: void set_klass(InstanceKlass* instance);
>>> 256:
>>> 257: void set_inline_layout_info_klass(int field_index, ValueKlass* vk,
>>> TRAPS);
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> void set_value_layout_info_klass(int field_index, ValueKlass* vk, TRAPS);
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 73:
>>
>>> 71: }
>>> 72:
>>> 73: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>>> inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> ValueLayoutInfo* value_field_info =
>> value_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 74:
>>
>>> 72:
>>> 73: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>>> inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>>> 74: ValueKlass* vk = inline_field_info->klass();
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> ValueKlass* vk = value_field_info->klass();
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.cpp line 111:
>>
>>> 109: if (lk == LayoutKind::REFERENCE) return lk;
>>> 110: assert(LayoutKindHelper::is_flat((lk)), "Must be");
>>> 111: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>>> inline_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> ValueLayoutInfo* inline_field_info =
>> value_layout_info_array->adr_at(field_info.index());
>>
>>
>> There's some renaming that was missed in this file.
>>
>> To be consistent, we should use inline->value in all these places or, if
>> we're talking about fields that have been flattened and want a distinction,
>> we should use flat rather than inline
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/fieldLayoutBuilder.hpp line 281:
>>
>>> 279: GrowableArray<FieldInfo>* _field_info;
>>> 280: FieldLayoutInfo* _info;
>>> 281: Array<InlineLayoutInfo>* _inline_layout_info_array;
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> Array<ValueLayoutInfo>* _value_layout_info_array;
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 329:
>>
>>> 327: Array<FieldStatus>* _fields_status;
>>> 328:
>>> 329: Array<InlineLayoutInfo>* _inline_layout_info_array;
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> Array<ValueLayoutInfo>* _value_layout_info_array;
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 995:
>>
>>> 993: static ByteSize init_thread_offset() { return
>>> byte_offset_of(InstanceKlass, _init_thread); }
>>> 994:
>>> 995: static ByteSize inline_layout_info_array_offset() { return
>>> byte_offset_of(InstanceKlass, _inline_layout_info_array); }
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> static ByteSize value_layout_info_array_offset() { return
>> byte_offset_of(InstanceKlass, _value_layout_info_array); }
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 1094:
>>
>>> 1092: assert(_inline_layout_info_array != nullptr, "Array not created");
>>> 1093: return _inline_layout_info_array->at(index);
>>> 1094: }
>>
>> inline -> value needs to be applied here as well
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.hpp line 1096:
>>
>>> 1094: }
>>> 1095:
>>> 1096: InlineLayoutInfo* inline_layout_info_adr(int index) {
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> ValueLayoutInfo* value_layout_info_adr(int index) {
>>
>>
>> _inline_layout_info_array -> _value_layout_info_array
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
>> src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.inline.hpp line 82:
>>
>>> 80: assert(has_inlined_fields() || has_null_restricted_static_fields(),
>>> "Sanity checking");
>>> 81: assert(idx < java_fields_count(), "IOOB");
>>> 82: ValueKlass* k = inline_layout_info(idx).klass();
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> ValueKlass* k = value_layout_info(idx).klass();
>
> Waiting for decision on the name for InlineLayoutInfo
I've renamed InlineLayoutInfo and associated variables and functions.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927471793
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927454354
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927474023
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927475406
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927477032
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927442365
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927481766
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927484739
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927486539
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927488103
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32673#discussion_r3927489972
