On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:15:28 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Though, I'm still wondering if we don't want to reject that at the layout API
> level instead. i.e. have withByteAlignment throw an exception for
> PaddingLayout
I still don't understand why this wasn't done from the start, so I fully
app
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 10:16:45 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> Should we disallow sequence layouts with an element count of zero?
I think this should be done in specific implementations (if at all), not in
AbstractLinker, where general rules of "what is definitely wrong" apply. At
least that is the co
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 20:59:12 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> I think the new rules define a bunch of rules that all layouts that model C
> type declarations should follow - but do so in broad strokes, still allowing
> the linker implementation to have the final say on what is and is not
> ac
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:32:53 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> Does this restacking make things clearer?
I really like this new definition.
To what extent do these rules determine the compatibility of FFM calling
conventions with the C calling convention? If I understand correctly, all
layout
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 14:17:52 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> 4. {@code G} contains at least a non-padding member layout
I reread all the points again, now the fourth one confuses me. Does it mean
that now linker will not support empty structures at all?
-
PR Comment: https://git
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:35:18 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR prevents sequence layout with padding to be used with the Linker.
>
> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Reword doce
These rules talk about GroupLayou
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 12:49:45 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> I think the new rules should explicitly ban zero-element sequence layouts.
Even in the rules with the latest edits, I don't see what exactly should
prohibit such sequences.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pul
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:35:18 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR prevents sequence layout with padding to be used with the Linker.
>
> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Reword doce
I'll add this here because the ru
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:21:56 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>I don't think anything else is needed here.
Besides the fact that it shouldn't run, but it does (all 4 examples does)
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21041#issuecomment-2383388238
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:21:56 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> in all ABIs
So... Ok, I did it for Android and it works. I don't know what should be in
Windows or exotic Linux
And why doesn't the current stripNames remove the targets from AddressLayout
for the parameters from DowncallHandle?
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:30:21 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>abstract "reduction" rules
I already use similar "reduction" in stripNames(), but not only for
PaddingLayout. For example, nested structures and unions are unpacked to be
flatter and the MethodHandle cache is more efficient. I like
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:35:18 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR prevents sequence layout with padding to be used with the Linker.
>
> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Reword doce
I came with a new batch of weird
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:54:55 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> This PR prevents sequence layout with padding to be used with the Linker.
>
> Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
> brought in
13 matches
Mail list logo
