RFR: 8253779: Amalloc may be wasting space by overaligning [v2]

[Coleen Phillimore]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 05:11:12 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stuefe at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Perhaps the naming ought to be Amalloc => AmallocL (long) and Amalloc4 => Amalloc?  But even if you agree with that or some other better naming scheme, such renaming probably ought to be a separate thing.
>
> I agree. I feel like this should really be the default "Amalloc" (pointer-sized alignment) and Amalloc should really be specific, e.g. "Amalloc64".

For some reason, the new me doesn't want to change all of these calls, but there are _only_ 45 Amalloc and now 38 Amalloc_4s.
I agree with both of you though.  Amalloc should be the default pointer sized alignment, and existing Amalloc should be jlong aligned.  So Amalloc_4 => Amalloc and Amalloc => Amalloc64.  I suspect the Amalloc64s could really be Amalloc but that only matters on 32 bit platforms which we don't support.  They can be changed by supporters of 32 bit platforms though.

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4732