RFR (M): 8060697: Improve G1 Heap Growth Heuristics

[Tom Benson]

Hi Kim,
Thanks again.  In this case, I actually prefer an explicit cast rather 
than relying on the presence of ".0" at the end of the compound 
expression to get the correct result.  However, I could get rid of the 
second cast. What would you think of that, and would you want to see a 
new webrev?
Tom

On 12/3/2015 3:08 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Tom Benson <tom.benson at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> Thanks very much for the review.   Updated webrevs (including the suggestions from Kim and Jon) are in:
>>
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tbenson/8060697/webrev.01.vs.00/    - incremental
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tbenson/8060697/webrev.01/ - full
> One minor comment, which you can use or ignore.  Otherwise, looks
> better than the last time I thought it looked good.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> src/share/vm/gc/g1/g1CollectorPolicy.cpp
> 1627     threshold *= (double)_g1->capacity() / (double)(_g1->max_capacity() / 2);
>
> Changing "2" => "2.0" would make both casts to double redundant,
> assuming the round-down in "(_g1->max_capacity() / 2)" isn't
> important.
>
>