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

[Volker Simonis]

Ahh, just wanted to send you a mail to ask about the build failures of
my submit-hs job on Solaris which I can't reproduce on our local
machines :)

Yes, please go ahead and push my change. I'm sure I'll find another
one which I can finally push myself :)

Thanks,
Volker


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Karlsson
<stefan.karlsson at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Volker,
>
> On 2018-03-13 18:13, 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.
>
>
> The submit job failed because of missing handles.inline.hpp includes in our
> closed JFR code. I've created closed patch to solve that. I can push both of
> these patches, unless you really want to push the open part yourself.
>
> Thanks,
> StefanK
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>