RFR 8218031: Zero build broken

[Ao Qi]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:44 AM Aleksey Shipilev <shade at redhat.com> 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");

I think this assert does not mess with buildability...

>   assert(0 <= InterpreterProfileLimit &&
>          InterpreterProfileLimit <= InterpreterInvocationLimit,
>          "profile threshold should be less than the compilation threshold "
>          "and non-negative");
>

I grep InterpreterProfileLimit, and it is used only once in
reached_ProfileLimit. reached_ProfileLimit is never called.

> Also, why these are removed? Do they mess with buildability?

Actually they are not removed by me. I think they were removed because
they were thought not to be used anymore.
InterpreterBackwardBranchLimit and InterpreterInvocationLimit are
still used when CC_INTERP defined, but InterpreterProfileLimit is not.

>
>  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?
>

reached_BackwardBranchLimit is never called too, it can be removed in
my opinion.

> >> Yes, you need a sponsor to push. I can be your sponsor.
> >
> > Thanks! Is there something I need to do?
>
> Nothing new, just answer a few questions above.
>
> -Aleksey
>