RFR (M): 8210462: Fix remaining mentions of initial mark

[Leo Korinth]

On 07/07/2020 14:38, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 2020, at 4:39 AM, Thomas Schatzl <thomas.schatzl at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Kim,
>>
>>   thanks for your review.
>>
>> On 03.07.20 22:29, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1Policy.cpp
>>> [removed]
>>>   636   bool this_pause_was_young_only = collector_state()->in_young_only_phase();
>>> Why was this variable removed and uses replaced with
>>> is_young_only_only(this_pause), rather than keeping the variable but
>>> updating the initialization?
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The reason is that this_pause_was_young_only is a local defined waaay up at the top of that method and I thought instead of referencing that one it is better to do the (very simple) function call.
>> I can change that again if you want.
> 
> OK.  The “far away” rationale makes sense.
> 
>> Webrevs:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8210462/webrev.1_to_2/ (diff)
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8210462/webrev.2/ (full)
>> Testing:
>> tier1, local gc/g1 jtreg run
> 
> Looks good.
> 

Looks good to me too.

Thanks,
Leo