RFR (S): 8022494: Make compilation IDs sequential

[Albert Noll]

Hi Chris,

thanks for looking at this. I'll fix the typos before pushing.

Best,
Albert

On 24.10.2013 18:12, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> *src/share/vm/runtime/sharedRuntime.cpp:*
> *+       // The compilation falls outside the allowed range. Note that this can only happen in debug*
> *+       // build if the cIStart(OSR) and CIStop(OSR) flags at are specified. Since currently this wrapper*
> Typo:  CIStart.  Also, should this be:  “flags are”?
>
> Otherwise this looks good.
>
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Albert Noll <albert.noll at oracle.com 
> <mailto:albert.noll at oracle.com>> 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.
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20131024/83d0da33/attachment.html