RFR(M): 8139040: Fix initializations before ShouldNotReachHere()

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 10/22/15 2:31 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> Hi Coleen,
>
> that fix looks good, thanks.  Sorry I can't avoid these.

Thank you - no it's hard to avoid these and as I said I have no idea why 
this platform complained (and don't care to spend more time to know).
> The warnings depend on the compiler optimizations, they
> probably differ slightly on the closed platform.

I am going to make a new changeset as you, but I wanted to make sure you 
knew it was different than the imported changeset.

thanks,
Coleen

>
> Best regards,
>    Goetz.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-
>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Coleen Phillimore
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015 21:26
>> To: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: RFR(M): 8139040: Fix initializations before
>> ShouldNotReachHere()
>>
>>
>> I had to add one more initialization for some internal platform for some
>> reason I don't quite know.   See threadService.hpp.
>>
>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8139040.01/
>>
>>
>> Coleen
>>
>> On 10/20/15 3:24 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> yes, I assume the compiler optimizes it.
>>> If the compiler issues a warning, it has all information it needs to
>>> optimize it.  So I'm sure gcc does so.  I don't know about the solaris
>>> compiler, though.
>>>
>>> Other locations in that file also initialize at the declaration
>>> (e.g., c1_LIRAssembler_x86.cpp:3917).
>>> I fixed these two anyways:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8139040-init/webrev.05/
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>     Goetz.
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: hotspot-runtime-dev [mailto:hotspot-runtime-dev-
>>>> bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of David Holmes
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 02:46
>>>> To: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>>> Subject: Re: RFR(M): 8139040: Fix initializations before
>>>> ShouldNotReachHere()
>>>>
>>>> Hi Goetz,
>>>>
>>>> src/cpu/x86/vm/c1_LIRAssembler_x86.cpp
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer to see the missing initialization added to the default of the
>>>> switch:
>>>>
>>>> !   Assembler::Condition acond = Assembler::equal, ncond =
>>>> Assembler::notEqual;
>>>>        switch (condition) {
>>>>
>>>> otherwise we're just wasting instructions (or assuming the compiler will
>>>> optimize it away).
>>>>
>>>> Same with:
>>>>
>>>> 3189   Address::ScaleFactor scale = Address::no_scale;
>>>>
>>>> More generally if something is complaining about an uninitialized
>>>> variable on a ShouldNotReachHere/fatal path then put the initialization
>>>> in that path, not the common code that will cause it to be unnecessarily
>>>> executed.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David