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

[Max Ockner]

I have made this change. It seems like the cleanest option.
-Max
On 3/26/2015 4:19 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>