Damon Fenacci

> Can you please fix the whitespace issues, it is a bit difficult to read now on GitHub ;) Sorry, I let them slip in. Fixed.

> I think you checks should also not be done **after** we already create a new node, but ideally before we create the new node. That is the normal pattern...

> If I am right that you would have made such a optimization impossible, that probably means that our tests don't have an IR test that cover this case. You...

> @dafedafe Nice, I think this already looks much better. Let me know if/when you want me to look at it again ;) Thanks a lot @eme64!

> The load does not succeed in `MemNode::can_see_stored_value`, because the load's `store_Opcode() == Op_StoreVector`, and not `Op_StoreVectorMasked`. But if you were to implement `LoadVectorMasked::store_Opcode() const { return Op_StoreVectorMasked; }`, then...

> // Load a float vector from the memory segment (internally, it does checkIndex and unsafe load from the byte array) > FloatVector floatVector = FloatVector.fromMemorySegment(ms, offset, ByteOrder.nativeOrder()) > ```...

> It would be great if you had tests that exactly exercise these "bad" examples, where it looks like we might optimize, but it would be wrong. Yep, good idea....

> * No mixed type test for load-store: Use MemorySegment `from/intoMmemorySegment`. Try something like store a int-vector, and load a float-vector. It looks as if load/stores that use `from`/`intoMemorySegment` with...

> Because we could allow those to use vectors in the future: I would leave the type checks in for now. 👍 better safe than sorry

> This part in the PR description could be updated: now we return `-1` for those that we think are not "comparable". You're right. Fixed. Thanks a lot for the...