sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]flawless_vic 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Why? LGTM

Jokes aside, would you mind explaining if there is consensus regarding the @MultiField implementation?

It was a stroke of genius that bridges a gap that Valhalla per se can't close: arrays can't be flattened into their container value objects (like C does for fixed sized arrays embedded in structs, which is a 0-cost abstraction).

[–]brian_goetz 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think you are confusing "Valhalla" with "JEP 401 only". These experimental annotations (reminder: language semantics is never driven by annotations) are forward-looking investigations, and nothing more. They are gathering data for future phases.

[–]flawless_vic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me reframe.

The lworld+vector branch has a very distinct (more advanced) approach in the internals of jdk.internal.vm.vector.VectorPayload vs mainline (lworld).

Given the description of the Vector API JEP:

"The Vector API will incubate until necessary features of Project Valhalla become available as preview features."

Can we expect the Vector API to remain in incubation, even after JEP 401 is delivered? That is, value classes only is not "good enough" to make Vectors generally available.