RFR(M): 8140594: Various minor code improvements (compiler)

[Tobias Hartmann]

Hi Goetz,

the build failed on Windows with:
c:/jprt/T/P1/083823.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/adlc/dfa.cpp(721) : error C3861: 'snprintf': identifier not found
c:/jprt/T/P1/083823.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/adlc/dfa.cpp(723) : error C3861: 'snprintf': identifier not found
c:/jprt/T/P1/083823.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/adlc/dfa.cpp(728) : error C3861: 'snprintf': identifier not found
c:/jprt/T/P1/083823.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/adlc/dfa.cpp(730) : error C3861: 'snprintf': identifier not found
c:/jprt/T/P1/083823.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/adlc/dfa.cpp(740) : error C3861: 'snprintf': identifier not found
c:/jprt/T/P1/083823.tohartma/s/hotspot/src/share/vm/adlc/dfa.cpp(742) : error C3861: 'snprintf': identifier not found

Looks like a missing include.

Best regards,
Tobias

On 09.05.2016 10:40, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Goetz,
> 
> thanks for the explanation, this looks good to me!
> 
> I'm running the hs-comp PIT now and will push the fix afterwards, if there are no objections.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias
> 
> On 09.05.2016 10:30, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>> Hi Tobias, 
>>
>>> I can sponsor your fix but since we are close to JDK 9 FC, we are not allowed
>>> to push enhancements to hs-comp. Shouldn't this be a "bug" anyway?
>> Thanks for reviewing and the offer to sponsor!
>> I changed the Jira issue to bug.  Sorry for being that close to FC with my RFR.
>>
>>>> - size of pointer passed to jio_snprintf()
>>> Please also fix the indentation in line 6004.
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>> classLoader.cpp
>>>> - jio_snprintf does null termination. But it might return -1 if truncated,
>>>>   in this case array access at -1.
>>> You can remove "int n;"
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>> generateOopMap.cpp
>>>> - Remaining fields not initialized.
>>> I would put the loop bodies in a new line.
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>> relocator.cpp
>>>> - delta might be -4 ... assert returns. 
>>> I don't understand this change. If delta is -4, the assert in the baseline version
>>> is triggered. With your fix, the assert is triggered as well.
>>
>> Sorry, that's a bad comment.  I meant that the assert does not 
>> protect against getting -4 in that line, because coverity knows 
>> about -XX:SuppressErrorAt.  But that's pointless, as assert goes
>> away in product builds anyways.  
>>
>> The assert shall be triggered, therefore I moved it out of the if().
>> But the if() now protects against oob with -4 or smaller.
>>
>> I also rebased the change, and added you as reviewer.  Find the new
>> Webrev here:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr16/8140594-covCo/webrev.01/
>> And the incremental patch:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr16/8140594-covCo/webrev.01/incremental_diff.patch
>>
>> Best regards,
>>   Goetz.
>>