RFR: 8213481: [REDO] Fix incorrect copy constructors in hotspot

[Vladimir Kozlov]

I am fine with changes for copy constructor.

Do we have other cases where it is used? I think the original use in [1] could be removed because I doubt the hack will 
have performance benefits for such big methods as stated in comment. May be we would not need it copy constructor then.

For assignment operator I have reservation. You can't use original allocation type if you can't guaranty that 
destination is the same type.

Thanks,
Vladimir

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/3db8758f0f79/src/hotspot/share/classfile/classFileParser.cpp#l135

On 11/18/18 10:14 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> Please review this fix of the debug-only copy constructor and
> assignment operator for ResourceObj, along with adding some missing
> uses of the copy constructor.
> 
> The missing copy constructor uses were found by enabling -Wextra.
> 
> The ResourceObj debug-only copy constructor should behave exactly the
> same as the corresponding default constructor.  That is, the setup for
> checking the allocation state in the destructor and operator delete
> should be the same whether in the normal or copy constructor.  That
> previously wasn't true, resulting in assert failures.
> 
> The ResourceObj assignment operator also should not be assuming the
> target of the assignment was stack/embeded allocated; that's just not
> a valid assumption.  The corresponding assertion has been removed.
> 
> Note that the ResourceObj allocation/construction/deletion code is
> oddly indented, using an initial 4 space indentation and 2 spaces for
> further indenting, unlike the usual consistent 2 space indentation
> used elsewhere in HotSpot, including elsewhere in allocation.cpp.
> I've left that indentation intact to minimize diffs in some views for
> review.  Unless there are objections, I plan to fix the indentation.
> 
> CR:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213481
> 
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8213481/open.00/
> 
> Testing:
> mach5 tier1-3.  There were many failures in these tiers with just the
> addition of the missing copy constructor calls (JDK-8213414).
>