[9] RFR(M): 8054292 : code comments leak in fastdebug builds

[David Chase]

Revised changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~drchase/8054292/webrev-for-leak-checks.12/

Consistent ifdefs around _defunct
_code_strings, not _strings
isNull now is_null
Added extra assert to assign.
Added placement-new-constructor call in InterpreterCodelet (to allow that extra assert).

Tested fastdebug and not-debug (calls itself “release”) builds w/ jtreg, fastdebug with PrintAsm enabled.
Did 64-hour leak check with KitchenSink; any leaks seem to be below the what’s-currently-compiled noise threshold.

Sanity check: is “optimized build” the default if I just run configure?


On 2014-08-22, at 9:08 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:

> On 8/22/14 5:43 PM, David Chase wrote:
>> 
>> On 2014-08-22, at 6:47 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> There is some missmatch of use #ifdef ASSERT and #ifndef PRODUCT.
>>> Please, build 'optimized' JVM in addition to 'product' and 'debug’.
>> 
>> Optimized VM is running my matrix-multiplication experiments happily, will also do jtreg, didn’t JPRT also do that for me?
>> I can certainly do jtreg with the optimized build.
> 
> Okay.
> 
>> 
>>> Seems _defunct field should be DEBUG only since it is checked only in assert. It could be NOT_PRODUCT bu in that case set_null_and_invalidate() should clean both fields under #ifndef PRODUCT.
>>> isNull() will return 'true' in NOT_PRODUCT (optimized VM) when assign() may set _strings.
>> 
>> John also wants it to be spelled is_null, and I just overlooked it and use JavaConventions.
>> I was planning to have all the probe methods do as little as possible in PRODUCT.
>> I agree, _defunct should also be DEBUG (is that the same as ASSERT?) only.
> 
> Yes:
> 
> #ifdef ASSERT
> #define DEBUG_ONLY(code) code
> 
>> 
>>> An other thing  I don't like in current code is the same name of _strings fields in both CodeStrings and CodeBuffer. It is difficult to follow which one is accessed in a code.
>> 
>> Do you recommend that I fix that, then?  I also did not like this, but thought it was house style.
> 
> It is not "house style".
> 
>> I propose to call the CodeStrings-typed field of CodeBuffer “_codestrings”.
> 
> Agree.
> 
>>>> One client of CodeBuffers allocates them without running their constructor,
>>>> which interfered with enabling the full set of assertions that we might like.
>>> 
>>> It would be nice to fix it - call constructor in that place. Where it is? You can try to do what we do in growableArray:
>>> new(&_strings) CodeStrings().
>> 
>> I’m trying to recreate that failure; it may be Linux-specific (it failed on Linux, but did not fail for me on Mac just now, this seems peculiar and even more unsettling).
>> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Vladimir