RFR(L): 8049325: Introduce and clean up umbrella headers for the files in the cpu subdirectories

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

David, can I consider this a review?  

And I please need a sponsor for this change.  Could somebody 
please help here?  Probably some closed adaptions are needed.
It applies to any repo as my other change traveled around
by now.

Thanks and best regards,
  Goetz.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 11. Juli 2014 07:19
To: Lindenmaier, Goetz; Lois Foltan
Cc: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(L): 8049325: Introduce and clean up umbrella headers for the files in the cpu subdirectories

On 10/07/2014 12:03 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> foo.hpp                                   as few includes as possible, to avoid cycles.
> foo.inline.hpp                      * must have foo.hpp, as it contains functions declared in foo.hpp
> 	                                       (either directly or via the platform files.)
>                                                      * should include foo.platform.inline.hpp, so that shared files that
> 	                                      call functions from foo.platform.inline.hpp need not contain the
> 	                                      cascade of all the platform files.
>                                                       If code in foo.platform.inline.hpp is only used in the platform files,
>                                                       it is not necessary to have an umbrella header.
> foo.platform.inline.hpp    Should include what is needed in its code.
>
> For client code:
>    With this change I now removed all include cascades of platform files except for
>    those in the 'natural' headers.
> Shared files, or files with less 'diversity' should include the general foo.[inline.]hpp.
> (foo.platform.cpp should not get a cascade with bar.os_platform.[inline.]hpp
> headers, but include bar.[inline.]hpp.)
> If it's 1:1, I don't care, as discussed before.
>
> Does this make sense?

I find the overall structure somewhat counter-intuitive from an 
implementation versus interface perspective. But ...

Thanks for the explanation.

David

>
> Best regards,
>    Goetz.
>
>
> which of the above should #include which others, and which should be
> #include'd by "client" code?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Thanks,
>> Lois
>>
>>>
>>> David
>>> -----
>>>
>>>> src/cpu/sparc/vm/c1_Runtime1_sparc.cpp
>>>>       - include nativeInst.hpp instead of nativeInst_sparc.hpp
>>>>       - include vmreg.inline.hpp instead of vmreg_sparc.inline.hpp
>>>>         (however this could pull in more code than needed since
>>>> vmreg.inline.hpp also includes asm/register.hpp and code/vmreg.hpp)
>>>>
>>>> src/cpu/ppc/vm/stubGenerator_ppc.cpp
>>>>       - change not related to clean up of umbrella headers, please
>>>> explain/justify.
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/code/vmreg.hpp
>>>>       - Can lines #143-#15 be replaced by an inclusion of
>>>> vmreg.inline.hpp or will
>>>>         this introduce a cyclical inclusion situation, since
>>>> vmreg.inline.hpp includes vmreg.hpp?
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/classfile/classFileStream.cpp
>>>>       - only has a copyright change in the file, no other changes
>>>> present?
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/prims/jvmtiClassFileReconstituter.cpp
>>>>       - incorrect copyright, no current year?
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/opto/ad.hpp
>>>>       - incorrect copyright date for a new file
>>>>
>>>> src/share/vm/code/vmreg.inline.hpp
>>>>       - technically this new file does not need to include
>>>> "asm/register.hpp" since
>>>>         vmreg.hpp already includes it
>>>>
>>>> My only lingering concern is the cyclical nature of
>>>> vmreg.hpp/vmreg.inline.hpp.  It might be better to not introduce the new
>>>> file "vmreg.inline.hpp" in favor of having files include vmreg.hpp
>>>> instead?  Again since vmreg.inline.hpp includes vmreg.hpp there really
>>>> is not much difference between the two?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lois
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/7/2014 4:52 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I decided to clean up the remaining include cascades, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> This change introduces umbrella headers for the files in the cpu
>>>>> subdirectories:
>>>>>
>>>>> src/share/vm/utilities/bytes.hpp
>>>>> src/share/vm/opto/ad.hpp
>>>>> src/share/vm/code/nativeInst.hpp
>>>>> src/share/vm/code/vmreg.inline.hpp
>>>>> src/share/vm/interpreter/interp_masm.hpp
>>>>>
>>>>> It also cleans up the include cascades for adGlobals*.hpp,
>>>>> jniTypes*.hpp, vm_version*.hpp and register*.hpp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where possible, this change avoids includes in headers.
>>>>> Eventually it adds a forward declaration.
>>>>>
>>>>> vmreg_<cpu>.inline.hpp contains functions declared in register_cpu.hpp
>>>>> and vmreg.hpp, so there is no obvious mapping to the shared files.
>>>>> Still, I did not split the files in the cpu directories, as they are
>>>>> rather small.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't introduce a file for adGlobals_<cpu>.hpp, as adGlobals mainly
>>>>> contains machine dependent, c2 specific register information. So I
>>>>> think optoreg.hpp is a good header to place the adGlobals_<cpu>.hpp
>>>>> includes in,
>>>>> and then use optoreg.hpp where symbols from adGlobals are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I moved the constructor and destructor of CodeletMark to the .cpp
>>>>> file, I don't think this is performance relevant. But having them in
>>>>> the header requirs to pull interp_masm.hpp into interpreter.hpp, and
>>>>> thus all the assembler include headers into a lot of files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and test this change.  I please need a sponsor.
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8049325-cpuInc/webrev.01/
>>>>>
>>>>> I compiled and tested this without precompiled headers on linuxx86_64,
>>>>> linuxppc64,
>>>>> windowsx86_64, solaris_sparc64, solaris_sparc32, darwinx86_64,
>>>>> aixppc64, ntamd64
>>>>> in opt, dbg and fastdbg versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, the change applies to hs-rt, but once my other change
>>>>> arrives in other
>>>>> repos, it will work there, too.  (I tested it together with the other
>>>>> change
>>>>> against jdk9/dev, too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>     Goetz.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I also did all the Copyright adaptions ;)
>>>>
>>