On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 16:37:55 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Frederic Parain has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 67 commits: >> >> - Merge branch 'array_klasses' of github.com:fparain/valhalla into >> array_klasses >> - Forgot a TODO >> - Small cleanup >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/lworld' into array_klasses >> - Moved get_Klass() back to protected and updated usages >> - Merge branch 'array_klasses' of github.com:fparain/valhalla into >> array_klasses >> - Linked TODOs to JDK-8366668 >> - Multidim array fix >> - Cleanup T_FLAT_ELEMENT related code >> - Fix for isAssignableFrom + tests >> - ... and 57 more: >> https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/compare/22e9d5f5...527a17b6 > > src/hotspot/share/jfr/jni/jfrUpcalls.cpp line 271: > >> 269: >> 270: // new String[method_count] >> 271: objArrayOop signature_array = >> oopFactory::new_objArray(vmClasses::String_klass(), method_count, >> ArrayKlass::ArrayProperties::DEFAULT, CHECK_NULL); > > I wonder if there are enough of these to create a default ref array to > overload oopFactory::new_objArray() for DEFAULT. Done. > src/hotspot/share/memory/oopFactory.cpp line 140: > >> 138: >> 139: objArrayHandle oopFactory::new_objArray_handle(Klass* klass, int >> length, TRAPS) { >> 140: // TODO FIXME check if this method should take an array properties >> argument (probably should) > > I was thinking the overload to have the default argument be DEFAULT is good. > Maybe we should remove new_objArray_handle in mainline though. There aren't > that many. If new_objArray_handle() should be removed, please do it in mainline first. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1452#discussion_r2323205682 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1452#discussion_r2323209901
