RFR: 8282392: [zero] Build broken on AArch64 [v2]

[Andrew Haley]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 16:48:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

> > That's what we looked at and it was more of a mess, IMO. In the end it's a judgment call which to have, and I've seen this kind of mistake, where a particular port is confused with a particular CPU, enough times that I think this is OK; YMMV.
> 
> From the perspective of Zero maintenance, having the Zero-specific workarounds explicitly doing `!ZERO` is cleaner. This mess is mostly Zero-s problem with idenitifying itself as CPU. So, in my mind, there is little reason to accommodate that problem with "port" defines.

I think I understand your point, but IMO it's almost always easier to understand language which says what something is than what it isn't, and a simple name than a boolean expression. And that is more important, I believe.
Having said that, if you insist that flagging this up as a Zero-specific workaround with `!ZERO` is really important I will give way to your preference. (I don't think it is: I think we should flag this code as port-specific, not CPU-specific. But mostly I just want this patch pushed.)

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7633