RFR: 8351568: Improve source code documentation for PhaseCFG::insert_anti_dependences [v6]

[Christian Hagedorn]

On Thu, 15 May 2025 09:02:12 GMT, Daniel Lundén <dlunden at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/hotspot/share/opto/gcm.cpp line 685:
>> 
>>> 683: // path relative to the load if there are no paths from early to LCA that go
>>> 684: // through the store's block. Such stores are not anti-dependent, and there is
>>> 685: // no need to update the LCA nor to add anti-dependence edges.
>> 
>> Suggestion:
>> 
>> // no need to update the load's LCA nor to add anti-dependence edges.
>
> For consistency, we would need to then also change "the LCA" to "the load's LCA" in many more places throughout the method, which increases verbosity. Is it not OK to simply use "LCA", since we have defined that this is the load's LCA at the start? We don't mention any other LCAs, so I don't think there'll be any confusion.

I matched that with the comment suggestion earlier but you changed that now to a better version. So, I agree with you here, let's leave it as it is :-)

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24926#discussion_r2090973749