[11] RFR (XXS): 8206476: Wrong assert in phase_enum_2_phase_string() in referenceProcessorPhaseTimes.cpp

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi all,

  can I have reviews to this issue found with our C++ source code
analysis tool that complains about one assert not being strict enough.

In particular:

static const char*
phase_enum_2_phase_string(ReferenceProcessor::RefProcPhases phase) { 
  assert(phase >= ReferenceProcessor::RefPhase1 && phase <=
ReferenceProcessor::RefPhaseMax, 
         "Invalid reference processing phase (%d)", phase); 
  return PhaseNames[phase]; 
}

The second "<=" should be a "<".

Actually there is an existing (correct) macro for the whole assert.
Replaced that line with the macro as follows:

@@ -80,8 +80,7 @@
 STATIC_ASSERT((REF_PHANTOM + 1) == ARRAY_SIZE(ReferenceTypeNames));
 
 static const char*
phase_enum_2_phase_string(ReferenceProcessor::RefProcPhases phase) {
-  assert(phase >= ReferenceProcessor::RefPhase1 && phase <=
ReferenceProcessor::RefPhaseMax,
-         "Invalid reference processing phase (%d)", phase);
+  ASSERT_PHASE(phase);
   return PhaseNames[phase];
 }

There is no actual failure, and there are no known failures with the
change either; the reason for putting this into 11 is to get rid of
unnecessary noise in source code analysis tool results.

CR:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8206476
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8206476/webrev/index.html
Testing:
hs-tier1-3,jdk-tier1

Thanks,
  Thomas