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

[Volker Simonis]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:47 PM,  <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> This looks good to me too.
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>

Thanks!

> ps. can you test out my patch on ppc and the others for 8199263: Split
> interfaceSupport.hpp to not require including .inline.hpp files
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8199263.02/webrev/index.html
>

Sure, I'll do it today and let you know...

>
> On 3/13/18 1:13 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>