Request for review: 8016302: Change type of the number of GC workers to unsigned int (2)

[Vladimir Kempik]

Hello

I've used UINT32_FORMAT because:

1) previous format type for worker was INT32_FORMAT, when worker was int

2) there is no such thing as UINT_FORMAT,  there is only UINTX_FORMAT

Do you think UINTX_FORMAT is better than UINT32_FORMAT for this case ?

Thanks, Vladimir
On 03.04.2014 14:30, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In concurrentG1Refine.cpp:63, could you use uint for i in that loop as 
> well and change the termination condition to i != UINT_MAX as you have 
> done in a few other places?
>
> In g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp, g1HotCardCache.cpp and g1RemSet.cpp, why do you 
> use UINT32_FORMAT, shouldn't it be just UINT_FORMAT?
>
> Otherwise, looks good!
> /Jesper
>
>
> Vladimir Kempik skrev 2/4/14 18:17:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Could I have a couple of reviews for this change?
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkempik/8016302/webrev.04/
>>
>> In 7121618 variables representing GC workers (worker id, worker id 
>> offset) have
>> been changed from int to unsigned int.
>>
>> Since then, code reintroduced the use of int's for this type of 
>> variable; fixing
>> this by aligning the code to use uints for ints.
>>
>> Since last september the fix was updated for jdk9 and size_t was 
>> replaced with
>> uint in
>> dirtyCardQueue.hpp,
>>
>>    54 bool apply_closure(CardTableEntryClosure* cl,
>>    55                      bool consume = true,
>>    56                      size_t worker_i = 0);
>>
>>    99   // The number of parallel ids that can be claimed to allow
>> collector or
>>   100   // mutator threads to do card-processing work.
>>   101   static size_t num_par_ids();
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>>