On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 08:10:39 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> lgtm. >> >> This should not clash with >> [JDK-8391174](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8391174), but I'd merge >> checked regardless. >> >> Also given the `JDK-8391174` I would probably have changed all the markWord >> hash zero checks and asserts to be `[!]obj->has_identity_hash()` checks / >> asserts as it reflects the object invariants better. > >> Also given the `JDK-8391174` I would probably have changed all the markWord >> hash zero checks and asserts to be `[!]obj->has_identity_hash()` checks / >> asserts as it reflects the object invariants better. > > And as I wrote earlier we should probably remove this invariant on the table > interface, use `oopDesc::identity_hash` inside the table when doing a put, > and remove the requirement for lookups and simply short-circuit. > (`obj->has_identity_hash()` is invariant after something has been added to > the table, but we should not require it for lookups) Thank you @xmas92, @dholmes-ora and @dcubed-ojdk for the reviews. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32573#issuecomment-5537880579
