RFR(S): 8179618: Fixes for range of OptoLoopAlignment and Inlining flags

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

could someone please sponsor this change?
Final webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8179618-FlagRanges/webrev.03/

Thanks,
  Goetz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindenmaier, Goetz
> Sent: Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 09:10
> To: 'Thomas Stüfe' <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> Cc: hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: RFR(S): 8179618: Fixes for range of OptoLoopAlignment and Inlining
> flags
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> could someone please sponsor? Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> I fixed the print statement.  New webrev anyways:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8179618-FlagRanges/webrev.03/
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>   Goetz.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Thomas Stüfe [mailto:thomas.stuefe at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 7:54 PM
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>
> Cc: hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR(S): 8179618: Fixes for range of OptoLoopAlignment and Inlining
> flags
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Goetz,
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz
> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com <mailto:goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> > wrote:
> 
> 	Hi Thomas,
> 
> 	thanks for looking at my change.
> 	New webrev:
> 	http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8179618-
> FlagRanges/webrev.02/
> 
> 	> c2_globals.hpp:
> 	> -          range(0, max_intx)                                                \
> 	> +          range(0, ((intx)MIN2((int64_t)max_intx,(int64_t)(+1.0e10))))      \
> 	> 32bit: I would have expected a build warning for the cast. Is it okay
> that we can never reach the max value on 32bit?
> 
> 	I double checked that there is no warning in our night builds and on
> linuxintel.
> 
> 	> commandLineFlagConstraintsCompiler.cpp:
> 	>      CommandLineError::print(verbose,
> 	>                              "OptoLoopAlignment (" INTX_FORMAT ") must be "
> 	>                              "multiple of NOP size\n");
> 	> There is an error here, the print parameter is missing. Would have
> expected the compiler to complain, actually - at least the gcc. Again, curious.
> 
> 	Thanks, good catch! The error was there before, but fixed anyways. I
> also
> 	added the NOP size.
> 
> 
> +  // Relevant on ppc, s390, sparc. Will be optimized where
> +  // addr_unit() == 1.
>    if (OptoLoopAlignment % relocInfo::addr_unit() != 0) {
>      CommandLineError::print(verbose,
>                              "OptoLoopAlignment (" INTX_FORMAT ") must be "
> -                            "multiple of NOP size\n");
> +                            "multiple of NOP size (" INTX_FORMAT ")\n",
> +                            value, relocInfo::addr_unit());
> 
> We are getting there...
> 
> 
> 
> addr_unit() returns int, so use %d, not INTX_FORMAT.
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from that all is fine. No need for a new webrev.
> 
> 
> 
> ..Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	Best regards,
> 	  Goetz.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Kind Regards, Thomas
> 
> 
> 	On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz
> <mailto:goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com <mailto:goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> >
> wrote:
> 	Hi,
> 
> 	This change fixes range handling of a few flags of C2.
> 	This should go to jdk10, and later be downported to some
> 	update of jdk9.
> 
> 	Please review this change. I please need a sponsor.
> 	http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8179618-
> FlagRanges/webrev.01/
> 
> 	Class WarmCallInfo limits its values to 1.0e10, but the flags used
> 	to set it's fields (HotCallCountThreshold etc.) are limited by max_intx.
> 	Using values over 1.0e10 causes assertions in the debug build.
> 
> 	OptoLoopAlignment must be a multiple of nop size, else it's not
> 	possible to generate the instructions that go into the pad.
> 	On x86 NOP size is 1, so it's no problem.
> 	For SPARC, OptoLoopAlignmentConstraintFunc implements a special
> 	case for bigger NOPs. This is also needed for s390 and ppc.
> 	I just removed the #define, as the code works also on platforms
> 	where NOPsize == 1. Actually, it should be optimized by the C
> 	compiler in these cases.
> 
> 	Best regards,
> 	  Goetz.
> 
>