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

[Hamlin Li]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 07:01:55 GMT, Fei Yang <fyang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> 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?

Sure, seems the prefix does not help reading the code.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27562#discussion_r2415922614