RFR(S): 7111795: G1: Various cleanups identified during walk through of changes for 6484965

[Tony Printezis]

John,

Re: the { } placement: I'm also OK either way. But I have tended to do 
the latter. So we should be consistent. Does anyone else have any 
preferences?

Tony

On 11/18/2011 12:57 PM, John Cuthbertson wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 11/18/11 09:28, Tony Printezis wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> Thanks for doing the cleanup. It's fine, one minor issue:
>>
>> 1989   G1CMParKeepAliveAndDrainClosure(ConcurrentMark* cm, CMTask* 
>> task) :
>> 1990     _cm(cm), _task(task),
>>
>>
>> 1991     _ref_counter_limit(G1RefProcDrainInterval)
>> 1992   {
>> 1993     assert(_ref_counter_limit>  0, "sanity");
>> 1994     _ref_counter = _ref_counter_limit;
>> 1995   }
>>
>>
>> maybe:
>>
>> 1991     _ref_counter_limit(G1RefProcDrainInterval) {
>> 1992     assert(_ref_counter_limit>  0, "sanity");
>> 1993     _ref_counter = _ref_counter_limit;
>> 1994   }
>>
>
> Sure - no problem.
>
>>
>> And one stylistic question: do you prefer this style for an empty 
>> constructor:
>>
>> class A {
>>   int _a, _b, _c;
>>   A() : _a(0), _b(0), _c(0)
>>    { }
>> };
>>
>> over this?
>>
>> class A {
>>   int _a, _b, _c;
>>   A() : _a(0), _b(0), _c(0) { }
>> };
>>
>> I would recommend the latter myself, given that it saves an extra line.
>
> I do tend to favor the former. I don't know why. But I'm not 
> absolutely tied to it. I'll revert back any I've changed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JohnC