RFR: 8351194: Clean up Hotspot SA after 32-bit x86 removal [v2]

[David Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 01:57:44 GMT, David Holmes <dholmes at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Thanks for the reviews. 
>> 
>> I have updated the html to read "requires hsdis".
>> 
>> Regarding checking for `amd64` vs. `x86_64`, I found two cases where one of `x86_64` and `amd64` is checked but not the other:
>> 
>> 
>> test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/c2/irTests/RotateLeftNodeLongIdealizationTests.java
>> 34: * @requires os.arch == "x86_64" | os.arch == "aarch64" | (os.arch == "riscv64" & vm.cpu.features ~= ".*zbb.*")
>> 
>> test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/c2/irTests/RotateLeftNodeIntIdealizationTests.java
>> 34: * @requires os.arch == "x86_64" | os.arch == "aarch64" | (os.arch == "riscv64" & vm.cpu.features ~= ".*zbb.*")
>> 
>> 
>> I checked the C++ sources for `RotateLeftNode::Value` and `RotateLeftNode::Ideal`, I couldn't find any platform-specific logic that would justify excluding `amd64`. I have updated both tests to include `amd64` in their `@requires`.
>> 
>> Is there a specific `x86_64` vs. `amd64` check in C you would like to point out?
>> 
>> For the total annihilation of the `amd64` naming, I have cut an issue at [JDK-8370339](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8370339).
>
>> For the total annihilation of the amd64 naming, I have cut an issue at [JDK-8370339](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8370339).
> 
> I meant this for the SA code, not the JDK in its entirety. For historical reasons we still define os.arch as "amd64" on Linux and Windows. We need to fix tests that are using the wrong `@requires` values.

I filed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8370378 for 3 compiler tests.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27844#discussion_r2450222785