[lworld] RFR: 8366705: [lworld] Re-work of arrays meta-data [v4]

[Frederic Parain]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 16:37:55 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <coleenp at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Frederic Parain has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 67 commits:
>> 
>>  - Merge branch 'array_klasses' of github.com:fparain/valhalla into array_klasses
>>  - Forgot a TODO
>>  - Small cleanup
>>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/lworld' into array_klasses
>>  - Moved get_Klass() back to protected and updated usages
>>  - Merge branch 'array_klasses' of github.com:fparain/valhalla into array_klasses
>>  - Linked TODOs to JDK-8366668
>>  - Multidim array fix
>>  - Cleanup T_FLAT_ELEMENT related code
>>  - Fix for isAssignableFrom + tests
>>  - ... and 57 more: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/compare/22e9d5f5...527a17b6
>
> src/hotspot/share/jfr/jni/jfrUpcalls.cpp line 271:
> 
>> 269: 
>> 270:   // new String[method_count]
>> 271:   objArrayOop signature_array = oopFactory::new_objArray(vmClasses::String_klass(), method_count, ArrayKlass::ArrayProperties::DEFAULT, CHECK_NULL);
> 
> I wonder if there are enough of these to create a default ref array to overload oopFactory::new_objArray() for DEFAULT.

Done.

> src/hotspot/share/memory/oopFactory.cpp line 140:
> 
>> 138: 
>> 139: objArrayHandle oopFactory::new_objArray_handle(Klass* klass, int length, TRAPS) {
>> 140:   // TODO FIXME check if this method should take an array properties argument (probably should)
> 
> I was thinking the overload to have the default argument be DEFAULT is good.   Maybe we should remove new_objArray_handle in mainline though.  There aren't that many.

If new_objArray_handle() should be removed, please do it in mainline first.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1452#discussion_r2323205682
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1452#discussion_r2323209901