RFR: 8332900: RISC-V: refactor nativeInst_riscv.cpp and macroAssembler_riscv.cpp [v4]

[Robbin Ehn]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 11:33:17 GMT, Hamlin Li <mli at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I don't get the point, can you clarify?

I think don't de-coupling by duplicating the constant is better than keeping the depedancy.
As long as the shared code expects the NativeXXX::instruction_size to work we can't move them.

E.g. (partly from my patch) nativeInst.cpp

if (NativeShortCall::is_at(addr)) {
   return NativeShortCall::instruction_size;
} else if (NativeFarCall::is_at(addr)) {
   return NativeFarCall::instruction_size;
}


In masm related code:

int MacroAssembler::max_patchable_far_call_stub_size() {                          
  // Max stub size: alignment nop, TrampolineStub.
  if (UseTrampolines) {
    return NativeInstruction::instruction_size + NativeShortCall::trampoline_size;


This would now look like:

int MacroAssembler::max_patchable_far_call_stub_size() {                          
  // Max stub size: alignment nop, TrampolineStub.
  if (UseTrampolines) {
    return Masm::instruction_size + Masm::native_short_call_trampoline_size;


Using different constant here is not an improvement.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19459#issuecomment-2145012844