On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:47:24 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/weakProcessorPhases.hpp line 50:
>>
>>> 48: };
>>> 49:
>>> 50: typedef uint WeakProcessorPhase;
>>
>> This was originally written with the idea that WeakProcessorPhases::Phase
>> (and WeakProcessorPhase) should be a scoped enum (but we didn't have that
>> feature yet). It's possible there are places that don't cope with a scoped
>> enum, since that feature wasn't available when the code was written, so
>> there might have be mistakes.
>>
>> But because of that, I'd prefer to keep the WeakProcessorPhases::Phase type
>> and the existing definition of WeakProcessorPhase. Except this proposed
>> change is breaking that at least here:
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/weakProcessor.inline.hpp
>> 116 uint oopstorage_index = WeakProcessorPhases::oopstorage_index(phase);
>> 117 StorageState* cur_state =
>> _storage_states.par_state(oopstorage_index);
>> =>
>> 103 StorageState* cur_state = _storage_states.par_state(phase);
>>
>> I think eventually (as in some future RFE) this could all be collapsed to
>> something provided by OopStorageSet.
>> enum class : uint WeakProcessorPhase {};
>>
>> ENUMERATOR_RANGE(WeakProcessorPhase,
>> static_cast<WeakProcessorPhase>(0),
>> static_cast<WeakProcessorPhase>(OopStorageSet::weak_count));
>> and replacing all uses of WeakProcessorPhases::Iterator with
>> EnumIterator<WeakProcessorPhase> (which involves more than a type alias).
>>
>> Though it might be possible to go even further and eliminate
>> WeakProcessorPhases as a thing separate from OopStorageSet.
>
> Ok, so I'm not sure what to do with this:
>
> enum Phase {
> // Serial phase.
> JVMTI_ONLY(jvmti)
> // Additional implicit phase values follow for oopstorages.
> `};`
>
> I've removed the only thing in this enum.
>Though it might be possible to go even further and eliminate
>WeakProcessorPhases as a thing separate from OopStorageSet.
This makes sense. Can we file another RFE for this? I was sort of surprised by
how much code was involved so I tried to find a place to stop deleting.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/967
