RFR (XL): 8139170: JVMCI refresh

[Christian Thalinger]

I have pulled two SPARC changes:

http://lafo.ssw.uni-linz.ac.at/hg/graal-jvmci-9/rev/c158981b3c59
http://lafo.ssw.uni-linz.ac.at/hg/graal-jvmci-9/rev/110a130aa88b

and updated the webrev to include (actually exclude) the individual bug fixes pushed to hs-comp.

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> It would be good if we would run at least one JVMCI test in JPRT.
>> 
>> If they are stable you can add them (compiler/jvmci for all) to hotspot_compiler_3 in test/TEST.groups
> 
> I’ll let Igor I. do that.
> 
>> 
>> Changes looks good.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>> 
>> On 10/14/15 2:31 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>> webrev updated.
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Christian Thalinger
>>>> <christian.thalinger at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:christian.thalinger at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 12, 2015, at 10:59 PM, Doug Simon <doug.simon at oracle.com
>>>>> <mailto:doug.simon at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 13 Oct 2015, at 06:19, Vladimir Kozlov
>>>>>> <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com <mailto:vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since we will get more changes from labs later we may enumerate
>>>>>> them: JVMCI refresh 1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or, pessimistically, JVMCI refresh 01 ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you explain new sed command in Gensrc-jdk.vm.ci.gmk.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/graal/graal-jvmci-8/rev/1852abfbaca3
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are you sure it works on windows?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can’t say for sure but given that I see similar patterns in other
>>>>> *.gmk files, I think it should be fine.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be good if we would run at least one JVMCI test in JPRT.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Instead of is_trivial(method) may be we should have general function
>>>>>> called from AdvancedThresholdPolicy::common() which return
>>>>>> compilation level for particular method (for example, we can also
>>>>>> limit it using compilecommand). Could be done as separate change
>>>>>> after this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I looked on jdk.vm.ci changes and nothing looks terrible wrong. I am
>>>>>> not familiar with it so I can't say that each line is correct. One
>>>>>> thing I am wondering is why explicit imports are used instead of .*
>>>>>> (compilation speed?):
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/graal-dev/2015-September/003546.html
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -import java.lang.annotation.*;
>>>>>> +import java.lang.annotation.ElementType;
>>>>>> +import java.lang.annotation.Retention;
>>>>>> +import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy;
>>>>>> +import java.lang.annotation.Target;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> An other thing is using AMD64/amd64 in files and directory names.
>>>>>> May be we should rename it to x64.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jvmciCodeInstaller_x86.cpp and jvmciCodeInstaller.cpp has next pattern:
>>>>>> +      if (HotSpotMetaspaceConstantImpl::compressed(constant)) {
>>>>>> +#ifdef _LP64
>>>>>> +        ...
>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>> +        fatal("unexpected compressed Klass* in 32-bit mode");
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +  } else {
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It would be nice to hide fatal() in some wrapper function.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jvmciEnv.cpp use ASSERT instead of DEBUG. We renamed ifdef DEBUG
>>>>>> long ago.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> globals.hpp changes conflict with 8139377.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then we should adopt 8139377 instead.
>>>> 
>>>> When I created the review 8139377 was not integrated yet.  Let me pull
>>>> again.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tests changes (mostly renaming) looks fine.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Fix copyright years (2015, 2015) in new files.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10/13/15 10:19 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139170
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~twisti/8139170/webrev/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> During the review period for JEP 243 there were some changes and
>>>>>>> enhancements to the JVMCI code done by Oracle Labs. In order to not
>>>>>>> disturb the already long and complicated review of JEP 243 we
>>>>>>> decided to do a refresh after the initial integration.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A lot of the Java changes is switching to using explicit imports.
>>> 
>