RFR (S): 8022494: Make compilation IDs sequential

[Albert Noll]

Christian, Vladimir, thanks for the review.

@Christian: Thanks for catching the typo

@Vladimir: I am not sure if I understand your suggestion correctly. 
Could you please clarify what you
mean by "The warning above will be assert after that."

Best,
Albert


On 10/28/2013 07:59 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Albert,
>
> The warning is not correct solution since we HAVE to generate method 
> handle intrinsics if your comment is correct:
>
> +       // must be generated for method handle intrinsics (8026407), 
> print out a warning.
> +       if (method->is_method_handle_intrinsic()) {
> +         warning("Must generate wrapper for method handle intrinsic");
> +         return;
> +       }
>
> I think assign_compile_id() should generate id in such case regardless 
> CIStart and CIStop values. The warning above will be assert after that.
>
> And, please, file RFE (starter task) to cleanup type of compile_id. In 
> some places it declared as 'int' and in an other as 'uint'.
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 10/24/13 1:56 AM, Albert Noll wrote:
>> Here is the updated webrev:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8022494/webrev.04/ 
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eanoll/8022494/webrev.04/>
>>
>> Best,
>> Albert
>>
>> On 24.10.2013 10:21, Albert Noll wrote:
>>> Hi Aleksey,
>>>
>>> thanks for looking at this.
>>>
>>> On 24.10.2013 10:15, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2013 12:01 PM, Albert Noll wrote:
>>>>> Here is the updated webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8022494/webrev.03/
>>>> Nice to see the locking gone.
>>>>
>>>> compileBroker.cpp:
>>>>    * Is that considered correct that OSR and normal compilations are
>>>> marked differently when running in debug mode, but not in release? I
>>>> understand the comment before assign_compile_id, so this is more of 
>>>> the
>>>> philosophical question.
>>> Compilation IDs are only different if -XX:CICountOSR is set, which is
>>> defaulted to false.
>>>> sharedRuntime.cpp:
>>>>    * Why do you need "2653   return;" in the method tail?
>>> Thanks for spotting this. I missed it during the cleanup.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Albert
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Aleksey.
>>>
>>