RFR: 8325467: Support methods with many arguments in C2 [v17]

[Emanuel Peter]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 18:22:47 GMT, Daniel Lundén <dlunden at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The name divergence between `basic_rm_size` and `_RM_SIZE` generally makes me a little suspicious if we chose the names right? Why do we even need the `RM` / `rm` prefix everyhwere? Is that not already clear from the context, we are after all in a register mask 😅  Not sure if it is worth changing everything now, or ever. But we should at least look for consistency ;)
>
> Yes, it is confusing but consistent. Your intuition is correct: there is a difference between `_rm_size` (the current total size, including extension) and `_RM_SIZE` (the base static size) 😅. @robcasloz introduced the "basic" terminology when working on tests in `test_regmask.cpp` and needed some way to expose `_RM_SIZE` publically in non-product code. Therefore, we have the method `basic_rm_size`. I don't really have a better suggestion. Perhaps `base_rm_size`, or `static_rm_size`? As in "the base/static part of rm_size". We cannot call the method `_RM_SIZE()` as that is prohibited by the style guide. We cannot call the method `RM_SIZE()` as `RM_SIZE` is a macro (and also not the same thing as `_RM_SIZE` on 64-bit machines).
> 
>> Why do we even need the RM / rm prefix everyhwere?
> 
> We really don't, but that's how it is :slightly_smiling_face: Could be worth refactoring, but not in this changeset!

Alright. Well sure, we don't have to do a full renaming now. Though I do need to understand what is what to be able to review. Is there a good definition somewhere of what is what?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20404#discussion_r2158617210