RFR: Some build fixes for gcc4.7

[Roman Kennke]

Hi David,

>From my perspective, there are the following proposed changes not
committed yet:

1.
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2012-November/007294.html

>From that one, only the jdk part is missing:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/shark/webrev-jdk-00/

I think it's the only one with a bug-id even:
8003868: fix shark for latest HotSpot and LLVM

2. Then there is the library_call build fixes. (Which have also been
proposed by Yasumasa Suenaga, which now got the bug id 8004898 and
Christian is working on it.)

Then I posted a bunch of others on hotspot-compiler-dev (maybe
hotspot-dev would have been better?)

3. Fix OSR in Shark for non-empty incoming stack
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009087.html

This one got a little review by David Chase, for which I will send an
updated webrev soon. I was hoping to get some more feedback though, or
even a bug-id.

4. Implement deoptimization support in Shark
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009088.html

This one did not get any feedback yet, no bug-id either.

5. Fix volatile float field access in Shark 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009089.html

Same, no feedback, no bug-id.

6. Enable JSR292 support in Shark
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009090.html

Got some positive feedback from John Rose, but no bug id and no
progress.

Please let me know if I should do anything different in the future
(different mailing list, different format, ..) Also, if it helps, I can
group all those changes into one big change, I just thought that it is
easier to review in logical chunks (otherwise the changes would
interleave and it's difficult to say what belongs to what).


Thanks for your cooperation!

Best regards,
Roman


> I think the library_call issue is the only thing that still needs 
> working on.
> 
> David
> 
> On 12/12/2012 8:17 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
> >
> > On 12/11/2012 05:00 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> >> Am Dienstag, den 11.12.2012, 16:53 -0500 schrieb Coleen Phillimore:
> >>> Now I hit this library_call.cpp compilation error. Has it been pushed
> >>> yet? I was going to piggyback this with another cleanup that I was
> >>> making if not.
> >> No, it has not been pushed yet. :-(
> >>
> >> Seems like all my patches have become stuck in the queue. Is there
> >> anything that I can do to make them move forward? Should I file them in
> >> openjdk bugzilla?
> >
> > What you are doing is the right way to submit patches. We don't really
> > monitor openjdk bugzilla. I think people are working on your other patches.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Coleen
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Roman
> >>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Coleen
> >>>
> >>> On 12/07/2012 11:28 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> >>>> Am Donnerstag, den 06.12.2012, 18:40 -0500 schrieb Coleen Phillimore:
> >>>>> The changes to binaryTreeDictionary.cpp are already in the hotspot-gc
> >>>>> repository and will/have been pushed up to main already. They should
> >>>>> already be in hotspot-comp.
> >>>> Ah great, good to see, thanks! :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Which compiler complains about the library_call.cpp changes? I have an
> >>>>> unstable ubuntu 12.10 system in order to run with gcc 4.7.2 and this
> >>>>> file compiles fine for me as is.
> >>>> This happens on Fedora, gcc 4.7.2. Fedora tends to incorporate
> >>>> improvements from dev versions sometimes... I agree with David, it
> >>>> would
> >>>> be good to fix in any case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Roman
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >