-
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
P4
-
9
-
b64
-
arm
Issue | Fix Version | Assignee | Priority | Status | Resolution | Resolved In Build |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JDK-8082631 | emb-9 | Tobias Hartmann | P4 | Resolved | Fixed | team |
The following operands have cost 0:
- indirect
- indIndexScaledI2L
- indIndexScaled
- indIndex
- indOffL
- indirectN
- indIndexScaledOffsetIN
- indIndexScaledI2LN
- indIndexScaledN
- indIndexN
- indOffIN
- indOffLN
Whereas the following operands have cost 'INSN_COST':
- indIndexScaledOffsetI
- indIndexScaledOffsetL
- indIndexScaledOffsetI2L
- indOffI
- indIndexScaledOffsetLN
- indIndexScaledOffsetI2LN
In my opinion there is no reason for 'indOffI' being more expensive than 'indOffL'.
- indirect
- indIndexScaledI2L
- indIndexScaled
- indIndex
- indOffL
- indirectN
- indIndexScaledOffsetIN
- indIndexScaledI2LN
- indIndexScaledN
- indIndexN
- indOffIN
- indOffLN
Whereas the following operands have cost 'INSN_COST':
- indIndexScaledOffsetI
- indIndexScaledOffsetL
- indIndexScaledOffsetI2L
- indOffI
- indIndexScaledOffsetLN
- indIndexScaledOffsetI2LN
In my opinion there is no reason for 'indOffI' being more expensive than 'indOffL'.
- backported by
-
JDK-8082631 Costs of memory operands in aarch64.ad are inconsistent
-
- Resolved
-
- blocks
-
JDK-8075136 Unnecessary sign extension for byte array access
-
- Resolved
-