RFR(S) 8248445: Use of AbsI/AbsL nodes should be limited to supported platforms

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Hi Boris,

Good change.

Add year to test's copyright line.

Regards,
Vladimir K

On 8/4/20 9:58 AM, Boris Ulasevich wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> Yes, thank you. I've re-written this to improve readability by changing the logic slightly.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bulasevich/8248445/webrev.03
> 
> thanks,
> Boris
> 
> On 03.08.2020 20:25, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>> The current code is hard to read. Can you rearrange it to have clear code flow (and correct spaces for if ())? 
>> Including F and D checks. To something like:
>>
>>   if (tzero == TypeF::ZERO) {
>>     if (sub->Opcode() == Op_SubF &&
>>         sub->in(2) == x &&
>>         phase->type(sub->in(1)) == tzero)) {
>>       x = new AbsFNode(x);
>>       if (flip) {
>>         x = new SubFNode(sub->in(1), phase->transform(x));
>>       }
>>     }
>>   } else if
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>
>> On 8/2/20 1:54 PM, Boris Ulasevich wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Please review a simple change to C2 to fix a regression: AbsI/AbsL
>>> nodes are used without checking that the platform supports them
>>> (for now it is the issue for ARM32 and 32-bit x86 platforms).
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bulasevich/8248445/webrev.02
>>> http://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248445
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Boris
>>>
>