RFR(S/M): 8199472: Fix non-PCH build after JDK-8199319

[Volker Simonis]

Hi,

please find the new webrev here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8199472.v2/

I've moved allocate_instance_handle to instanceKlass.cpp as requested
and updated some copyrights. The change is currently running through
the new submit-hs repo testing.

If you're OK with the new version and the tests succeed I'll push the
change tomorrow.

Best regards,
Volker


On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Stefan Karlsson
<stefan.karlsson at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Volker,
>
> On 2018-03-13 10:12, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Coleen, Stefan,
>>
>> sure I'm open for suggestions :)
>>
>> As you both ask for the same thing, I'll prepare a new webrev with
>> allocate_instance_handle moved to instanceKlass.cpp. In my initial
>> patch I just didn't wanted to change the current inlining behaviour
>> but if you both think that allocate_instance_handle is not performance
>> critical I'm happy to clean that up.
>
>
>
> I don't think it's critical to get it inlined. With that said, I think the
> compiler will inline allocate_instance into allocate_instance_handle, so
> you'll most likely only get one call anyway.
>
>> With the brand new submit-hs repo posted by Jesper just a few hours
>> ago, I'll be also able to push this myself, so no more need for a
>> sponsor :)
>
>
> Yay!
>
> StefanK
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Volker
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:42 PM,  <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi this looks good except:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8199472/src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.inline.hpp.udiff.html
>>>
>>> Can you move this a function in instanceKlass.cpp and would this
>>> eliminate
>>> the changes that add include instanceKlass.inline.hpp ?
>>>
>>> If Stefan is not still online, I'll sponsor this for you.
>>>
>>> I have a follow-on related change
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199263 which is quickly
>>> expanding
>>> due to transitive includes that I hope you can help me test out (when I
>>> get
>>> it to compile on solaris).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/12/18 3:34 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> can I please have a review and a sponsor for the following fix:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8199472/
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199472
>>>>
>>>> The number changes files is "M" but the fix is actually "S" :)
>>>>
>>>> Here come the gory details:
>>>>
>>>> Change "8199319: Remove handles.inline.hpp include from
>>>> reflectionUtils.hpp" breaks the non-PCH build (at least on Ubuntu
>>>> 16.04 with gcc 5.4.0). If you configure with
>>>> "--disable-precompiled-headers" you will get a whole lot of undefined
>>>> reference for "Handle::Handle(Thread*, oopDesc*)" - see bug report.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that newer versions of GCC (and possibly other compilers as
>>>> well) don't emit any code for inline functions if these functions can
>>>> be inlined at all potential call sites.
>>>>
>>>> The problem in this special case is that "Handle::Handle(Thread*,
>>>> oopDesc*)" is not declared "inline" in "handles.hpp", but its
>>>> definition in "handles.inline.hpp" is declared "inline". This leads to
>>>> a situation, where compilation units which only include "handles.hpp"
>>>> will emit a call to "Handle::Handle(Thread*, oopDesc*)" while
>>>> compilation units which include "handles.inline.hpp" will try to
>>>> inline "Handle::Handle(Thread*, oopDesc*)". If all the inlining
>>>> attempts are successful, no instance of "Handle::Handle(Thread*,
>>>> oopDesc*)" will be generated in any of the object files. This will
>>>> lead to the link errors listed in the .
>>>>
>>>> The quick fix for this issue is to include "handles.inline.hpp" into
>>>> all the compilation units with undefined references (listed below).
>>>>
>>>> The correct fix (realized in this RFR) is to declare
>>>> "Handle::Handle(Thread*, oopDesc*)" inline in "handles.hpp". This will
>>>> lead to warnings (which are treated as errors) if the inline
>>>> definition is not available at a call site and will avoid linking
>>>> error due to compiler optimizations. Unfortunately this requires a
>>>> whole lot of follow-up changes, because "handles.hpp" defines some
>>>> derived classes of "Handle" which all have implicitly inline
>>>> constructors which all reference the base class
>>>> "Handle::Handle(Thread*, oopDesc*)" constructor. So the constructors
>>>> of the derived classes have to be explicitly declared inline in
>>>> "handles.hpp" and their implementation has to be moved to
>>>> "handles.inline.hpp". This change again triggers other changes for all
>>>> files which relayed on the derived Handle classes having inline
>>>> constructors...
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>>> Volker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>