RFR (T) 8250042: Clean up methodOop and method_oop names from the code

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

I can also replace method_oop with method_ptr in the CPU ad files, and 
this seems to build but now someone who knows the compiler area needs to 
comment; this was supposed to be trivial... :)  But it still is really 
trivial to look at.

I left interpreter_method_oop_reg and compiler_method_oop_reg and 
friends in opto/matcher.cpp for someone else.

incremental webrev at 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8250042.02.incr/webrev
full webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8250042.02/webrev

Thanks,
Coleen


On 7/24/20 8:23 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> On 7/24/20 1:01 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Coleen,
>>
>> On 24/07/2020 2:58 am, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>> See bug for more details.  I've been running into these names a lot 
>>> lately.   Many of these names are in JVMTI.
>>>
>>> Tested with tier1 on all Oracle platforms and built on non-Oracle 
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> open webrev at 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/2020/8250042.01/webrev
>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8250042
>>
>> src/hotspot/cpu/*/*.ad
>>
>> These still refer to "method oop" and method_oop in a number of places.
>
> Yes, I only replaced method_oop in the shared code and not in the AD 
> code.  method_oop can be the name of a parameter and using "sed" to 
> change it to "method" doesn't work.   Somebody who understands this 
> code and looks at it will have to make the rest of the changes.
>
> What I did was replace "method oop" with "method" and "methodOop" with 
> "method" in all the sources.  I replaced "method_oop" with "method" or 
> "checked_method" in the shared sources.
>
>>
>> src/hotspot/share/adlc/adlparse.cpp
>>
>> +  frame->_interpreter_method_oop_reg = parse_one_arg("method reg 
>> entry");
>>
>> I guess I'm not understanding the scope of this renaming - why is 
>> _interpreter_method_oop_reg not renamed as well? Should this (and 
>> other uses) be parsed as method-(oop-reg) rather than (method-oop)-reg?
>
> I don't know this code, so I'd rather not change any more of it. The 
> comment makes sense changed, even though the variable name still 
> refers to method_oop.
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>>
>> Otherwise all okay.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>