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

[Jon Masamitsu]

On 11/18/2011 12:36 PM, Tony Printezis wrote:
> 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?

I also do the latter.

>
> 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