[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8129426: aarch64: add support for PopCount in C2

[Alejandro E Murillo]

On 6/24/2015 7:36 AM, Edward Nevill wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 15:11 -0600, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
>> On 6/23/2015 7:51 AM, Edward Nevill wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-06-23 at 11:32 +0100, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>>>> On 23/06/15 11:10, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> On 22/06/15 17:14, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> Well, you might not want to take this risk and instead add an explicit
>>>>>> zero of the upper half. But I think we need to be clear what risk we are
>>>>>> taking.
>>>>> It's this: if we don't explicitly zero the upper half we'll have to
>>>>> audit all the code which might present a sign-extended value (instead
>>>>> of a zero-extended one) in a register that's supposed to contain a
>>>>> jint.
>>>> Ok, let's play safe. If Ed tweaks the patch to zero the upper word we
>>>> can always revise that later if/when we decide we are feeling lucky.
>>>>
>>> OK. New webrev at
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~enevill/8129426/webrev.02/
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Ed.
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>> to be consistent with similar integrations and to avoid potential
>> merging problems,
>> going forward please work with  the hs-rt repo for this kind of changes,
>> as Volker has been doing.
> Hi Alejandro,
>
> I have rebased the patch on hs-rt. New webrev
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~enevill/8129426/webrev.03/
>
> Does it look OK to push?
>
> Thanks,
> Ed.
>
Apologies, I thought you had already pushed that to jdk9/dev,
but it turns out you had pushed 8129551 , no this one.

If this is a follow up to the previous push into jdk9/dev (8129551)
or somewhat related, then it's probably better if you pushed
this one  to jdk9/dev as well, as to avoid any possible conflict
when we merge jdk9/dev with jdk9/hs. If they are completely
independent then go ahead and push it to hs-rt, after review of course.

Thanks

-- 
Alejandro