RFR 8218031: Zero build broken

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On 1/30/19 5:44 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 1/30/19 5:38 PM, Ao Qi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:26 AM Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/30/19 5:17 PM, Ao Qi wrote:
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aoqi/8218031/webrev.00
>>>
>>> This looks good to me.
> 
> 
> Let me ask a question, though, don't we want these asserts back too?
> 
>   assert(0 <= InterpreterBackwardBranchLimit,
>          "OSR threshold should be non-negative");
>   assert(0 <= InterpreterProfileLimit &&
>          InterpreterProfileLimit <= InterpreterInvocationLimit,
>          "profile threshold should be less than the compilation threshold "
>          "and non-negative");
> 
> Also, why these are removed? Do they mess with buildability?
> 
>  102   bool reached_BackwardBranchLimit(InvocationCounter *back_edge_count) const {
>  103     return (_counter & count_mask) + (back_edge_count->_counter & count_mask) >=
>  104            (unsigned int) InterpreterBackwardBranchLimit;
>  105   }
>  106   // Do this just like asm interpreter does for max speed.
>  107   bool reached_ProfileLimit(InvocationCounter *back_edge_count) const {
>  108     return (_counter & count_mask) + (back_edge_count->_counter & count_mask) >=
>  109            (unsigned int) InterpreterProfileLimit;
> 
> 
> I see that InterpreterProfileLimit is gone, but InterpreterBackwardBranchLimit is still there,
> should we keep the assert and reached_BackwardBranchLimit then?

I am thinking this:
  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8218031/webrev.01/

(also note the Contributed-by line)

This passes Linux x86_64 {zero, server} builds.

-Aleksey



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20190130/d49ed20c/signature.asc>