RFR (tedious) 8173070: Remove ValueObj class for allocation subclassing for runtime code

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

On 3/8/18 3:31 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com 
> <mailto:thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Coleen,
>
>     On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:26 PM, <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
>     <mailto:coleen.phillimore at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
>         This change removes VALUE_OBJ_CLASS_SPEC as subclass for
>         classes in the runtime code.  I decided to split this into 3
>         parts to divide the clicking.  See the bug for discussion of
>         why we would like to remove this null class on most platforms
>         in favor of the link time check to disallow Hotspot code from
>         calling global operators new and delete (bug
>         https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198243
>         <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198243>)
>
>         Tested with mach5 nightly tests with the full set of changes
>         and mach5 tier1-2 with this set.
>
>         open webrev at
>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8173070.01/webrev
>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecoleenp/8173070.01/webrev>
>         bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173070
>         <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173070>
>
>         I'll update the copyrights with hg commit.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Coleen
>
>
>     Looks mostly okay. Thank you for doing this, this will make C++
>     parsing in CDT easier.
>
>     allocation.hpp: the comment around _ValueObj now reads strange.
>     Also, just curious, do we still need _ValueObj?
>
>
> Oh, just read that others already commented on the comment. So, never 
> mind...

Thanks for the review.  Yes, I will remove ValueObj in the next (or 
maybe third) go around.

Coleen

>     Kind Regards, Thomas
>
>