RFR 8029567: Clean up linkResolver code

[Yumin Qi]

Coleen,

*src/share/vm/ci/ciMethod.cpp*
*src/share/vm/classfile/loaderConstraints.cpp
**src/share/vm/classfile/loaderConstraints.hpp
**src/share/vm/interpreter/bytecode.cpp*
*src/share/vm/interpreter/linkResolver.hpp*
*src/share/vm/runtime/javaCalls.cpp

*Those files need copyright 'year' to be updated.

Thanks
Yumkin
On 5/28/2015 3:34 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> The change (jck testing in progress) with the loader constraint 
> changes backed out.
>
> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8029567.03/
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>
> On 5/28/15 5:59 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>
>> Hi Karen,
>>
>> Yes, I'll back out the loader constraint changes.  I was trying to 
>> merge the error message construction code for failing loader 
>> constraint checks since it's similar code in 5 places but I gave up, 
>> and made the CLD change as a side effect.
>> We store ClassLoaderData in the loader constraint table now but this 
>> is a good find, because I think there is a behavior change here in 
>> the comparison.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Coleen
>>
>> On 5/28/15 5:43 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>>> Coleen,
>>>
>>> 1. Thank you for highlighting where we have check_access as false - 
>>> so we can make sure we
>>> really really meant to do that going forward.
>>>
>>> 2. I am concerned about the loader constraint changes to use class 
>>> loader data rather than class loaders.
>>> Since these are not 1:1 - what about use cases in which the class 
>>> loaders are the same but the loader datas are not?
>>>
>>> In the Valhalla exploration of ClassDynamic, we are exploring having 
>>> dynamic classes, which would be defined
>>> via DefineAnonymousClass - which can be used in signatures, so we 
>>> would need to be able to compare types which may
>>> have different loader datas but might need to compare as equivalent 
>>> since they have the same class loader.
>>>
>>> I believe the intention of this set of changes is cleanup - not 
>>> meant to change behavior.
>>>
>>> But that change actually is a meaningful behavior change - and I 
>>> think it is premature to make it.
>>>
>>> Could you possibly back out the loader constraint related changes?
>>>
>>> Those will take more thought, more future designs, and detailed 
>>> targeted tests.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Summary: Moved non-const reference return values to actual return 
>>>> values, refactored error handling code, pass CLD rather than 
>>>> class_loader oop, remove oop from Method* variable names.
>>>>
>>>> Also modified the long parameter lists into a class LinkInfo to 
>>>> hold information from the constant pool that is always passed 
>>>> through several layers of functions together.  Also reformatted to 
>>>> split parameter list lines to some reasonable width.
>>>>
>>>> The type methodHandle should be passed as const reference types to 
>>>> avoid copy construction, because it has a non-trivial destructor. 
>>>> This sort of change could be made in more places in the JVM, but I 
>>>> stopped with linkResolver.
>>>>
>>>> Ran all hotspot jtreg tests, jck lang/vm/api/java_lang tests, 
>>>> internal testbase tests: vm.quick.testlist, vm.defmeth.testlist, 
>>>> proposed new selection-resolution tests, jdk/java/lang/invoke tests 
>>>> (see RFR).
>>>>
>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8029567/
>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029567
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Coleen
>>
>