RFR: 8263992: Remove dead code NativeLookup::base_library_lookup [v2]

[Ioi Lam]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 04:09:22 GMT, Ioi Lam <iklam at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hi Ioi,
>> 
>> Looks good but  do we have a problem with the notion of "in base library" ??? Should we perhaps have been using this method elsewhere?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> David
>
>> Hi Ioi,
>> 
>> Looks good but do we have a problem with the notion of "in base library" ??? Should we perhaps have been using this method elsewhere?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> David
> 
> This function was last used here in 2014. (JDK-8031819: Remove legacy jdk checks and code)
> 
> So one has found any use of it for the past 6+ years. I think it's pretty dead.
> 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/diff/afe58d604f28/src/share/vm/prims/jvm.cpp

> _Mailing list message from [David Holmes](mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com) on [hotspot-dev](mailto:hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net):_
> 
> On 23/03/2021 2:12 pm, Ioi Lam wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 03:21:52 GMT, David Holmes <dholmes at openjdk.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Ioi,
> > > Looks good but do we have a problem with the notion of "in base library" ??? Should we perhaps have been using this method elsewhere?
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > 
> > 
> > This function was last used here in 2014. (JDK-8031819: Remove legacy jdk checks and code)
> > So one has found any use of it for the past 6+ years. I think it's pretty dead.
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/diff/afe58d604f28/src/share/vm/prims/jvm.cpp
> 
> Yes it looks like this should have been removed as part of 8031819.
> 
> But I remain a little confused as to what "in base library" means in the
> rest of the code.
> 
> Cheers,
> David

I removed the `int& in_base_library` parameter. There were only 2 callers that passed this parameter, but they don't use the returned value.

I also removed unnecessary inclusion of nativeLookup.hpp.

And I edited the PR description as well.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3139