RFR: 8256633: Fix product build on Windows+Arm64

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:11:09 GMT, Bernhard Urban-Forster <burban at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/assembler_aarch64.hpp line 509:
>> 
>>> 507:           if (_ext.shift() > 0) {
>>> 508:             assert(_ext.shift() == (int)size, "bad shift");
>>> 509:           }
>> 
>> D'oh. So this is semantically the same as:
>> 
>>  assert(_ext.shift() <= 0 || _ext.shift() == (int)size, "bad shift");
>> 
>> ...or, if we expect shift to be non-negative:
>> 
>>  assert(_ext.shift() == 0 || _ext.shift() == (int)size, "bad shift");
>
> Indeed. Are you suggesting to change it?  I usually try to avoid changing code style when doing a fix of such a nature.

I feels odd to have empty method body when asserts are disabled. So yes, I suggest to subsume the check into the assert itself.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1312