RFR: 8211447: Replace oop_pc_update_pointers with oop_iterate and closure

[Leo Korinth]

Hi, and thanks for reviewing!

On 09/10/2018 11:06, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 18:31 +0200, Leo Korinth wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This is the is the third enhancement in a series of three to remove
>> Parallel GC specific behaviour from shared code. I will post all
>> three enhancements to the mailing list.
>>
>> For a description on what is changed see my earlier "RFR: 8201436:
>> Replace oop_ps_push_contents with oop_iterate and closure"
>>
>> Enhancement:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211447
>>
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lkorinth/8211447/00/
> 
> - psClosure.inline.hpp:103: superfluous "protected" keyword (probably
> pre-existing)
> 
> - I *think* psClosure.inline.hpp should be called
> "pcClosure.inline.hpp" - i.e. please fix the already mentioned "ps" vs.
> "pc" naming issue. :)

psClosure.inline.hpp is changed in the first patch for JDK-8201436 and 
not for this patch (actually extracted from psScavenge.inline.hpp to 
psClosure.inline.hpp without being changed to fix include logic, but 
that _is hard_ to see in my webrev). I have neither created nor renamed 
the closures, just moved them. Also, they seem to be used from the 
scavenge part if I read the code correctly, so I think they are 
correctly named to begin with. I guess you confused this change in my 
earlier patch (PS related) with this RFR right?

I will try to incorporate all your other changes together with Stefan's 
improvements and create new webrevs!

Thanks,
Leo

> 
> - maybe fix the spacing of the "public" keyword in
> instanceClassLoaderKlass.hpp:55 (pre-existing issue); actually it can
> be removed.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Thomas
> 
>