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

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

Hi,

It seems like UINT32_FORMAT is frequently used together with uint so leave it as is.
/Jesper

Vladimir Kempik skrev 3/4/14 13:41:
> 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
>>>
>