RFR(xs): 8149096: Remove unused code in methodComparator

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Hi Thomas,

Ok, I'll remove the line before push.

Thanks,
Serguei


On 2/10/16 00:01, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for the reviews and sponsorship offers!
>
> Whoever sponsors this change, could you please remove the BciMap 
> forward declaration as David suggessted? Thanks!
>
> ... Thomas
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:29 AM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com 
> <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/02/2016 2:26 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>         Hi Coleen,
>
>         You were right, there was more dead code. See my new webrev here:
>
>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.02/webrev/
>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.02/webrev/>
>
>
>     Great to see this being simplified even further.
>
>     In the .hpp file you can also remove this forward declaration:
>
>       32 class BciMap;
>
>     No need for a new webrev.
>
>     Thanks,
>     David
>
>
>         Kind Regards, Thomas
>
>         On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Coleen Phillimore <
>         coleen.phillimore at oracle.com
>         <mailto:coleen.phillimore at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
>             Hi, So this was really good of Serguei to find that the
>             code under
>             _switchable_test is dead.   It seems that
>             old_and_new_locations_same()
>             appears dead also now.  Do you mind continuing to unravel
>             this?  Also
>             new_bci_for_old() is dead, and _old_bci, _new_st_bci and
>             _new_end_bci.
>             Unless I'm reading this wrong.  Simplifying anything in
>             redefinition is
>             greatly appreciated, especially this.
>
>             thanks,
>             Coleen
>
>
>             On 2/9/16 4:36 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>                 Hi all,
>
>                 thanks to all for your feedback. Here is the new webrev:
>
>
>                 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.01/webrev/index.html
>                 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.01/webrev/index.html>
>
>                 I removed _switchable_test and all code dependending
>                 from it.
>
>                 Thomas
>
>                 On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:17 AM,
>                 serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
>                 <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> <
>                 serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
>                 <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>                 On 2/8/16 20:20, David Holmes wrote:
>
>
>                     On 9/02/2016 5:22 AM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
>                     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>                         Hi Thomas,
>
>
>                             The fix looks good.
>                             The following variable and all its uses
>                             are dead too as it never gets
>                             'true' value.
>
>                             I think _switchable_test is the variable
>                             Serguei was referring to.
>
>
>                         Yes.
>
>                     I forgot to paste the variable name. :)
>
>
>                     Thanks,
>                     Serguei
>
>
>
>                     The whole notion of switchability is "dead" now so
>                     all code that relates
>
>                         to _switchable_test being true is also dead.
>                         Also any comment use of
>                         switchable.
>
>                         But it is up to you to fix it or not.
>                         I'd like to see it all cleaned up please. :)
>
>                         Thanks,
>                         David
>
>
>                         I can sponsor and push the fix.
>
>
>                             Thank you for taking care about this.
>                             Serguei
>
>
>                             On 2/8/16 06:24, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>                             Hi all,
>
>
>                                 please review and sponsor this little
>                                 change. It gets rid of two
>                                 unused methods in
>                                 methodComparator(cpp/hpp).
>
>                                 We stumbled over this because of
>                                 warings about unchecked realloc()
>                                 return values; but instead of fixing
>                                 the code, we may just remove the
>                                 offending methods, because they are
>                                 not used anywhere.
>
>                                 See also mail thread here:
>
>
>                                 http://openjdk.5641.n7.nabble.com/Unused-code-in-prims-methodComparator-td254425.html
>                                 .
>
>
>
>                                 bug:
>                                 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149096
>
>                                 webrev:
>
>
>                                 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.00/webrev/
>                                 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.00/webrev/>
>                                 <
>
>                                 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8149096-remove-unused-code-methodComparator/webrev.00/webrev/
>
>
>
>
>
>                                 Kind Regards, Thomas
>
>
>
>
>