[lworld] RFR: 8315935: [lworld] Apply flat renaming to C2 code

[Frederic Parain]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 07:33:17 GMT, Tobias Hartmann <thartmann at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Same renaming as in JDK-8315412 applied to C2 code.
>> 
>> Tested with Mach5, tier1
>> 
>> Fred
>
> src/hotspot/share/oops/flatArrayOop.hpp line 32:
> 
>> 30: #include "runtime/handles.hpp"
>> 31: 
>> 32: // A flatArrayOop is an array containing flattened inline types (no indirection).
> 
> Shouldn't this be "flat inline types" instead?

This is one aspect of the renaming that requires some bike-shading.
So far, I've applied the "flat" qualifier to the container, the field or the array, because there's a direct impact on the shape of the container and the way it is accessed.
But should we apply the "flat" qualifier to the value itself? The value is the value, a set of constants with a shape that doesn't change if it is stored in a flat field, a flat array or an standalone instance.
Both "flat inline type" and "flattened inline type" sound weird to me, so I don't really have a preference. Does one make more sense or is more informative than the other?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/925#discussion_r1323449971