RFR: 8074718: Merged templateTable_x86 header files for 32/64 bits.

[Coleen Phillimore]

This looks like a good suggestion!
Coleen

On 3/25/15, 2:22 PM, harold seigel wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> This looks good.  Just one small comment about templateTable_x86.hpp.  
> (No need for a new webrev)
>
> Could you combine this:
>
> 346 #elif defined TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86_32
> 347 # include "templateTable_x86.hpp"
> 348 #elif defined TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86_64
> 349 # include "templateTable_x86.hpp"
> 350 #elif defined TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_sparc
>
> Into:
>
> 346 #elif defined(TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86_32) || 
> defined(TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86_64)
> 347 # include "templateTable_x86.hpp"
> 350 #elif defined TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_sparc
>
>
> Thanks, Harold
>
> On 3/24/2015 1:32 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> Please review this small change.
>>
>> Bug:  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074718
>> Webrev: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/8074718/src/share/vm/interpreter/templateTable.hpp.cdiff.html
>> Summary: The templateTable_x86 hpp files for 32 and 64 bits have been 
>> merged. Just a couple of notes:
>>
>> (1) I would prefer to combine the two conditions which include 
>> templateTable_x86.hpp if possible, but I'm not comfortable fiddling 
>> with the TARGET_ARCH_MODEL labels.
>> I was hoping to use TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86 to encompass both 
>> TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86_64 and TARGET_ARCH_MODEL_x86_32, but I don't 
>> think it exists. Any suggestions?
>>
>> (2) templateTable_x86.hpp is the updated file that will be kept. 
>> templateTable_x86_32.hpp and templateTable_x86_64.hpp are copies of 
>> templateTable_x86.hpp, and still exist for reviewing purposes. They 
>> will be removed before this is committed.
>>
>> Tested with jtreg runtime tests.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Max
>