RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing (original) (raw)
Kim Barrett kim.barrett at oracle.com
Thu Sep 24 17:39:59 UTC 2015
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:57 PM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote:
I see now. jintSize would be better than 4. But I think even better would be pointer size, though I haven’t found an existing constant for that. Maybe sizeof(address)? We have 'const int wordSize = sizeof(char*)'. The only disadvantage to that is the max value is then smaller on 64bit platforms than on 32bit platforms. I doubt the difference is interesting in practice though. I agree that there's no big difference in practice. I just wanted to avoid to have smaller upper limit for 64bit platforms. But if you prefer to use 'wordSize' instead of '4', I'm fine. It would give better readability.
Yes, please.
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]