RFR: 8266773: Release VM is broken with GCC 9 after 8214237

[Jie Fu]

On Mon, 10 May 2021 23:48:08 GMT, Jie Fu <jiefu at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> FYI: this patch appears to solve the build issue for me:
>> 
>> diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp
>> index 2e52bd9dcc6..846511ae521 100644
>> --- a/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp
>> +++ b/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp
>> @@ -319,7 +319,9 @@ void G1GCPhaseTimes::details(T* phase, const char* indent_str) const {
>>    LogTarget(Trace, gc, phases, task) lt;
>>    if (lt.is_enabled()) {
>>      LogStream ls(lt);
>> -    ls.print("%s", indent_str);
>> +    if (indent_str) {
>> +      ls.print("%s", indent_str);
>> +    }
>>      phase->print_details_on(&ls);
>>    }
>>  }
>> @@ -332,7 +334,7 @@ void G1GCPhaseTimes::log_phase(WorkerDataArray<double>* phase, uint indent_level
>>    for (uint i = 0; i < phase->MaxThreadWorkItems; i++) {
>>      WorkerDataArray<size_t>* work_items = phase->thread_work_items(i);
>>      if (work_items != NULL) {
>> -      out->print("%s", indent(indent_level + 1));
>> +      out->sp(indent_level * 2);
>>        work_items->print_summary_on(out, true);
>>        details(work_items, indent(indent_level + 1));
>>      }
>> 
>> 
>> Not sure if this is the correct solution.
>
>> FYI: this patch appears to solve the build issue for me:
>> 
>> ```
>> diff --git a/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp b/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp
>> index 2e52bd9dcc6..846511ae521 100644
>> --- a/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp
>> +++ b/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1GCPhaseTimes.cpp
>> @@ -319,7 +319,9 @@ void G1GCPhaseTimes::details(T* phase, const char* indent_str) const {
>>    LogTarget(Trace, gc, phases, task) lt;
>>    if (lt.is_enabled()) {
>>      LogStream ls(lt);
>> -    ls.print("%s", indent_str);
>> +    if (indent_str) {
>> +      ls.print("%s", indent_str);
>> +    }
>>      phase->print_details_on(&ls);
>>    }
>>  }
>> @@ -332,7 +334,7 @@ void G1GCPhaseTimes::log_phase(WorkerDataArray<double>* phase, uint indent_level
>>    for (uint i = 0; i < phase->MaxThreadWorkItems; i++) {
>>      WorkerDataArray<size_t>* work_items = phase->thread_work_items(i);
>>      if (work_items != NULL) {
>> -      out->print("%s", indent(indent_level + 1));
>> +      out->sp(indent_level * 2);
>>        work_items->print_summary_on(out, true);
>>        details(work_items, indent(indent_level + 1));
>>      }
>> ```
>> 
>> Not sure if this is the correct solution.
> 
> Thanks @mgkwill for your info.
> 
> It would be better to remove all of the old usages of indent(), which is suggested by @lkorinth .
> Thanks.

> hi @DamonFool ,
> 
> Thanks for tackling this! Feel free to go forward with your patch, I'll withdraw mine.
> 
> You patch looks fine. Nit: having a constant for chars-per-indentation would be nice instead of the literal 2 and " ". But I don't have strong emotions.
> 
> Cheers, Thomas

Thanks @tstuefe .

What do you mean by `having a constant for chars-per-indentation would be nice instead of the literal 2 and " "`?
Could you please give me an example?
Thanks.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3941