RFR: 8201318: Introduce GCThreadLocalData to abstract GC-specific data belonging to a thread

[Doug Simon]

> On 14 Apr 2018, at 12:42, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04/13/2018 08:10 PM, Per Liden wrote:
>> On 04/13/2018 03:33 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 04/10/2018 01:51 PM, Per Liden wrote:
>>>> A couple of commits were pushed, which causes conflicts with this
>>>> change, so here's a rebased version:
>>>> 
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8201318/webrev.1
>>> 
>>> Did the Graal changes go upstream?
>> 
>> I assume that will happen in the next Graal re-sync.
> 
> Does anybody do two-way syncs to Graal?  I thought we imported Graal
> wholesale, but I may be wrong about that.

No, you're right. It only goes one way. That said, small changes like this could be be pushed to openjdk to keep testing working but a PR must be made at the same time at https://github.com/oracle/graal/pulls so that the next Graal update will not override the changes pushed directly to the openjdk repo. However, the HotSpot team responsible for the Graal updates probably prefers the changes only to be done in the updates.

> In the meantime, be aware that Graal development on JDK11 is broken
> until this change is pushed to Graal.  As far as I know, Graal changes
> are supposed to be reviewed by Graal developers.

Changes like this one can be reviewed by anyone in the HotSpot compiler team or Graal team.

-Doug