RFR [XS]: 8236709: struct SwitchRange in HS violates C++ One Definition Rule - was RE: struct SwitchRange and C++ One Definition Rule [-Wodr]

[Baesken, Matthias]

Hello, thanks for the input .

I renamed SwitchRangeC1   to  C1SwitchRange  and  removed the unnecessary forward declaration .

New webrev :

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8236709.1/


Best regards, Matthias




> >
> > Hello, please review  this small fix for an issue  that I was running into  when
> experimenting  with  gcc8  and   the -flto compiler flag .
> > When building with those flags,  the gcc8 warns that  the  SwitchRange
> classes  in HS code   violate the C++ One Definition Rule .
> > So I renamed one of those 2  SwitchRange   classes .
> >
> > Bug/webrev :
> >
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8236709
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8236709.0/
> 
> I think I would prefer the C1 "namespace" disambiguator to be a prefix
> rather than a suffix, to be consistent with usage in other parts of
> HotSpot.  (GC code does that somewhat consistently, for example.)  I
> don't recall seeing "namespace" suffixes used anywhere in HotSpot.
> 
> I've occasionally considered proposing that C2 code be wrapped in a
> namespace. It grabs a bunch of very generic global type names ("Type",
> "Block", &etc; really!?) that can be annoying. (Though the diet for
> precompiled.hpp helped with that.) But anything like that is probably
> out of scope for the immediate problem.
> 
> Giving C2 primacy of place (renaming the C1 class and letting C2 keep
> the "good" name) seems consistent with existing practice.