RFR: 8350642: Interpreter: Upgrade CountBytecodes to 64 bit on 64 bit platforms [v2]

[Martin Doerr]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:39:17 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> David Linus Briemann has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 15 additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - remove CountBytecodesTest from tier1
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into dlb/bytecode_counter_overflow
>>  - remove auto included header
>>  - fix x86 asm
>>  - address review comment, add back comma to copyright header
>>  - formatting
>>  - remove bad header
>>  - add missing comma to copyright header
>>  - speed up runtime by running less bytecodes, add explanation
>>  - add copyright header and @bug number
>>  - ... and 5 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/954660f8...31a52156
>
> src/hotspot/share/interpreter/bytecodeTracer.cpp line 132:
> 
>> 130:       st->print("[%zu] ", Thread::current()->osthread()->thread_id_for_printing());
>> 131:       if (Verbose) {
>> 132:         st->print("%8zu  %4d  " INTPTR_FORMAT " " INTPTR_FORMAT " %s",
> 
> Sounds like there are more than 8 digits now?

I thought about this, too, but I don't think it's a problem because the width is specified like this: "Minimum number of characters to be printed. If the value to be printed is shorter than this number, the result is padded with blank spaces. The value is not truncated even if the result is larger." [https://cplusplus.com/reference/cstdio/printf/].
Do we want a larger fixed number of digits?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23766#discussion_r1989680811