RFR: 8368897: RISC-V: Cleanup RV_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS & RV_NON_EXT_FEATURE_FLAGS [v4]

[Fei Yang]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:19:39 GMT, Hamlin Li <mli at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> But why is not vector size/length called:
>> `VM_Version::non_ext::rvv_vlen()`  or similar ? Should it ?
>> 
>> Should VM_Version::non_ext and VM_Version::ext be private, so we create a public:
>> VM_Version::ziboz_block_size() ?
>> 
>> I added:
>> `static bool supports_fencei_barrier() { return ext_Zifencei.enabled(); }`
>> 
>> 
>> Was this wrong? Should I have used `VM_Version::ext_Zifencei.enabled()` in MASM ?
>> 
>> Can we agree to one consistent way?
>
>> But why is not vector size/length called: `VM_Version::non_ext::rvv_vlen()` or similar ? Should it ?
> 
> I think this should be in another pr.
> 
>> Should VM_Version::non_ext and VM_Version::ext be private, so we create a public: VM_Version::ziboz_block_size() ?
> 
> If you prefer `VM_Version::ziboz_block_size` as the interface, then I don't think it's necessary to have `VM_Version::non_ext` and `VM_Version::ext` in the implemention.
> 
>> I added: `static bool supports_fencei_barrier() { return ext_Zifencei.enabled(); }`
>> Was this wrong? Should I have used `VM_Version::ext_Zifencei.enabled()` in MASM ?
>> Can we agree to one consistent way?
> 
> As mentioned above, I think this should be in another pr: a consistent interface of VM_Version.

@Hamlin-Li : Can we remove the `non_ext_` name prefix for non-extension features and maybe the `enabled()` check as well as we previously discussed?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27562#discussion_r2412799354