RFR (L, tedious) 8199809: Don't include frame.inline.hpp and other.inline.hpp from .hpp files
coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
Wed Mar 21 13:28:53 UTC 2018
On 3/21/18 9:02 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 21/03/2018 10:39 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Thank you for building this.
>>
>> On 3/21/18 7:50 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>
>>> I think your patch uncovered an issue.
>>>
>>> I saw this weird compile error on AIX:
>>>
>>> 471 54 | bool is_sigtrap_ic_miss_check() {
>>> 471 55 | assert(UseSIGTRAP, "precondition");
>>> 471 56 | return
>>> MacroAssembler::is_trap_ic_miss_check(long_at(0));
>>> ===========================^
>>> "/priv/d031900/openjdk/jdk-hs/source/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/nativeInst_ppc.hpp",
>>> line 56.12: 1540-0062 (S) The incomplete class "MacroAssembler" must
>>> not be used as a qualifier.
>>> 471 57 | }
>>>
>>> in a number of places. But the definition of class MacroAssembler
>>> was available. So I checked if MacroAssembler was accidentally
>>> pulled into a namespace or a class, and sure enough, your patch
>>> caused it to be defined *inside* the class InterpreterRuntime. See
>>> interpreterRuntime.hpp:
>>>
>>> class InterpreterRuntime: AllStatic {
>>> ...
>>> // Platform dependent stuff
>>> #include CPU_HEADER(interpreterRT)
>>> ...
>>> };
>>>
>>> which pulls in the content of interpreterRT_ppc.hpp.
>>>
>>> interpreterRT_ppc.hpp includes
>>>
>>> #include "asm/macroAssembler.hpp"
>>> #include "memory/allocation.hpp"
>>>
>>> (minus allocation.hpp after your patch)
>>>
>>> which is certainly an error, yes? We should not pull in any includes
>>> into a class definition.
>>
>> Yes, I had this problem with x86 which was very befuddling. I hate
>> that we include files in the middle of class definitions!
>
> It's a crude but effective way to "extend" a class with platform
> specific code at build time. But it does have constraints.
Crude is the key adjective.
>
>>>
>>> I wondered why this did not cause errors earlier, but the include
>>> order changed with your patch. Before the patch, the error was
>>> covered by a different include order: nothing was really included by
>>> interpreterRT_ppc.hpp, the include directives were noops. I think
>>> this was caused by src/hotspot/share/prims/methodHandles.hpp pulling
>>> frame.inline.hpp and via that path pulling macroAssembler.hpp. With
>>> your patch, it pulls only frame.hpp.
>>>
>>> One could certainly work around that issue but the real fix would be
>>> to not include anything in files which are included into other
>>> classes. Those are not "real" includes anyway. And maybe add a
>>> comment to that file :)
>>
>> I will add a comment to all of these like:
>>
>> // This is included in the middle of class Interpreter.
>> // Do not include files here.
>>
>> Hm so I need to add the #include for macroAssembler.hpp somewhere new
>> like nativeInst_ppc.hpp or does just removing it from
>> interpreterRT_ppc.hpp fix the problem?
>
> Whatever code is in the included platform specific header still needs
> to ensure the definitions that it needs have been included. If those
> are shared files then you may just be able to move them into the
> shared cpp file, but any platform specific headers must still be
> included in the platform specific headers.
Yes, I don't know which files need this inclusion on ppc though. They
are not needed or already transitively included on the platforms we have.
thanks,
Coleen
>
>
> David
> -----
>
>> thanks,
>> Coleen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Stüfe
>>> <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com <mailto:thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>
>>> linuxs390 needs this:
>>>
>>> - .../source $ hg diff
>>> diff -r daf3abb9031f src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interpreterRT_s390.cpp
>>> --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interpreterRT_s390.cpp Wed Mar 21
>>> 08:37:04 2018 +0100
>>> +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/s390/interpreterRT_s390.cpp Wed Mar 21
>>> 11:12:03 2018 +0100
>>> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
>>> }
>>>
>>> // Implementation of SignatureHandlerGenerator
>>> -InteprerterRuntime::SignatureHandlerGenerator::SignatureHandlerGenerator(
>>>
>>> +InterpreterRuntime::SignatureHandlerGenerator::SignatureHandlerGenerator(
>>>
>>> const methodHandle& method, CodeBuffer* buffer) :
>>> NativeSignatureIterator(method) {
>>> _masm = new MacroAssembler(buffer);
>>> _fp_arg_nr = 0;
>>>
>>> (typo). Otherwise it builds fine.
>>>
>>> I'm getting build errors on AIX which are a bit more complicated,
>>> still looking..
>>>
>>> Thanks, Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:08 AM, <coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
>>> <mailto:coleen.phillimore at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Summary: Remove frame.inline.hpp,etc from header files and
>>> adjust transitive includes.
>>>
>>> Tested with mach5 tier1 on Oracle platforms: linux-x64,
>>> solaris-sparc, windows-x64. Built with open-only sources
>>> using --disable-precompiled-headers on linux-x64, built with
>>> zero (also disable precompiled headers). Roman built with
>>> aarch64, and have request to build ppc, etc. (Please test
>>> this patch!)
>>>
>>> Semi-interesting details: moved SignatureHandlerGenerator
>>> constructor to cpp file, moved
>>> interpreter_frame_stack_direction() to target specific hpp
>>> files (even though they're all -1), pd_last_frame to
>>> thread_<os_cpu>.cpp because there isn't a
>>> thread_<os_cpu>.inline.hpp file, lastly moved
>>> InterpreterRuntime::LastFrameAccessor into
>>> interpreterRuntime.cpp file, and a few other functions moved
>>> in shared code.
>>>
>>> This is the last of this include file technical debt cleanup
>>> that I'm going to do. See bug for more information.
>>>
>>> open webrev at
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8199809.01/webrev
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecoleenp/8199809.01/webrev>
>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199809
>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199809>
>>>
>>> I'll update the copyrights when I commit.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
More information about the hotspot-dev
mailing list