RFR (S): 8022494: Make compilation IDs sequential

[Vladimir Kozlov]

We have to generate method_handle_intrinsic so we can't simple show warning and continue execution - we can't do that.
I suggested to generate compile_id always in such case and convert your warning to assert (since it could only happens 
in debug VM).
Also why you return only in such case and not for normal native wrappers?

+       if (method->is_method_handle_intrinsic()) {
+         warning("Must generate wrapper for method handle intrinsic");
+         return;
+       }
---
+       assert(!method->is_method_handle_intrinsic()), "Must generate wrapper for method handle intrinsic");
+       return;

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 12/18/13 10:18 PM, Albert Noll wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>