RFR: 8332900: RISC-V: refactor nativeInst_riscv.cpp and macroAssembler_riscv.cpp [v3]

[Hamlin Li]

On Fri, 31 May 2024 12:13:32 GMT, Fei Yang <fyang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> Like `NativeInstruction::is_li16u` which delegates work to `MacroAssembler::is_li16u_at`.
>> 
>> I don't find `NativeInstruction::is_li16u`, maybe you want to say something else for the delegation you mentioned?
>> 
>> Take `MacroAssembler::is_li16u_at` as example, I moved it to macroAssembler, because in macroAssembler it's used too. So one of the principals I'd like to stick to in this refactoring is to make these 2 classes's communication unidirectional, so maybe it's better to move `MacroAssembler::is_li16u_at` too.
>
>> > Like `NativeInstruction::is_li16u` which delegates work to `MacroAssembler::is_li16u_at`.
>> 
>> I don't find `NativeInstruction::is_li16u`, maybe you want to say something else for the delegation you mentioned?
> 
> Never mind. I think I miss read the code.
> 
>> Take `MacroAssembler::is_li16u_at` as example, I moved it to macroAssembler, because in macroAssembler it's used too. So one of the principals I'd like to stick to in this refactoring is to make these 2 classes's communication unidirectional, so maybe it's better to move `MacroAssembler::is_li16u_at` too.
> 
> Yeah. Your change becomes interesting to me now. I am having another check.

Thanks @RealFYang @luhenry @robehn for your reviewing.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19459#issuecomment-2146761997