RFR(L): 8146401: Clean up oop.hpp: add inline directives and fix header files

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi Daniel,

The problem is that the separation into .inline.hpp files is not 
(and was much less) consistent.
I think the issue you remember are calls from xxx.hpp files 
to methods with 'inline' keyword in another yyy.hpp file where 
the implementation is in the yyy.inline.hpp file.
The proper fix would be to move this method to xxx.inline.hpp
and include yyy.inline.hpp in xxx.inline.hpp.
The fixes often applied instead were 
 1.) include yyy.inline.hpp in xxx.hpp.  This leads to cycles, maybe in a 
       later change.
 2.) add yyy.inline.hpp to all .cpp files that somehow include xxx.hpp.
       This keeps breaking all the time.
This was further complicated as there was no build without precompiled
headers. Precompiled headers hide these problems if yyy.inline.hpp is in the precompiled 
header.  Now (thanks to David!) jprt has a build without precompiled headers.

Recent cleanups improved the situation wrt. this.

Also, I remember the problems Volker mentioned where the linker
step fails.

Best regards,
  Goetz.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel D. Daugherty [mailto:daniel.daugherty at oracle.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 8. Januar 2016 16:00
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; David Holmes
> <david.holmes at oracle.com>; hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR(L): 8146401: Clean up oop.hpp: add inline directives and fix
> header files
> 
> On 1/8/16 2:31 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> >> I still don't see how adding inline to the declaration changes anything
> >> here. The compiler can't do the inlining unless the .inline.hpp file has
> >> been included. ???
> > Yes, and therefore it issues an error if the keyword is in the .hpp header:
> >
> > In file included from /sapmnt/home/d045726/oJ/8146401-oopInline-rt-hs-
> rt/src/share/vm/utilities/hashtable.cpp:27:0:
> > /sapmnt/home/d045726/oJ/8146401-oopInline-rt-hs-
> rt/src/share/vm/classfile/javaClasses.hpp:113:30: error: inline function 'static
> typeArrayOopDesc* java_lang_String::value(oop)' used but never defined [-
> Werror]
> >     static inline typeArrayOop value(oop java_string);
> >
> > So you can not miss including the inline.hpp header.
> 
> OK so now I'm confused...
> 
> You declare a method in the oop.hpp file, but it is not defined
> there nor is it defined in the oop.cpp file. It is defined as
> "inline" in the oop.inline.hpp file...
> 
> If I try to use the method in code that does not include oop.inline.hpp,
> then I would expect the compiler to flag that because it can't find
> the method. I could swear that I've run into that "problem" before...
> and the solution was to add the "oop.inline.hpp" file...
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> >
> > Best regards,
> >    Goetz.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
> >> Sent: Freitag, 8. Januar 2016 08:54
> >> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; hotspot-runtime-
> >> dev at openjdk.java.net
> >> Subject: Re: RFR(L): 8146401: Clean up oop.hpp: add inline directives and
> fix
> >> header files
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/01/2016 5:28 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
> >>>> Sent: Freitag, 8. Januar 2016 06:07
> >>>> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; hotspot-
> runtime-
> >>>> dev at openjdk.java.net
> >>>> Subject: Re: RFR(L): 8146401: Clean up oop.hpp: add inline directives
> and
> >> fix
> >>>> header files
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/01/2016 1:01 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> >>>>> Hi David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the documentation you point to makes the point that whether to
> inline
> >>>>> is an implementation detail, and that that should not be annotated to
> >>>>> the declaration.  Basically, this is a good point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But the documentation does not cover the fact that
> >>>>> we have the implementation in a different file than the declaration.
> >>>>> The .inline.hpp is not included always (as you pointed out).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore, if we compile with precompiled headers, we get more
> >>>>> inlines than if we do so without.
> >>>>> Further, many functions were moved to oop.linline.hpp during the
> >>>>> recent cleanups, and I think all the #includes I had to add were not
> >>>>> left out deliberately, but just happened because the compiler did
> >>>>> not complain.
> >>>>> I think if somebody decides not to place a function implementation
> >>>>> in a .cpp file, it should have the chance to be inlined at all it's calls.
> >>>>> Putting the 'inline' into the .hpp file assures this.
> >>>> Sorry I don't follow that. If you include the .inline.hpp you don't need
> >>>> "inline" in the .hpp. If you don't include it then the compiler doesn't
> >>>> have access to the definition so that it can be inlined.
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>>> it seems to me that if
> >>>> you want it inlined then you must include the .inline.hpp anywhere it is
> >>>> needed. Anything else seems a bad-aid.
> >>> But I think not the caller should decide whether it's to be inlined,
> >>> but the implementor of the method (and next the compiler).
> >>> As you describe, the caller has to decide which header to include.
> >>> So the caller has to know implementation details of the callee,
> >>> which is contrary to the encapsulation described in that documentation.
> >> That's my understanding of the way things are expected to work. This is
> >> not a public library exporting its interface in a .hpp file, this an
> >> internal part of the bigger system. As I understand it we define the
> >> .inline.hpp file precisely so that clients can include it. And yes the
> >> clients have to know to do that.
> >>
> >>> If you add the 'inline' keyword in the header, the compiler enforces
> >>> that the includes are in a way that it can do what the implementor
> >>> of the callee / of the method to be inlined intended.
> >> I still don't see how adding inline to the declaration changes anything
> >> here. The compiler can't do the inlining unless the .inline.hpp file has
> >> been included. ???
> > Yes, but it issues a warning and  will abort if it's wrong.
> >
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
> >> -----
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Maybe
> >>>> precompiled headers messes with that somehow
> >>> Actually, you are right.  Oop.inline.hpp is not in precompiled.hpp, nor
> >>> is it dragged in by some other .inline.hpp header.
> >>> I would assume this is a remnant of the problems with this header.
> >>> But if it was listed there, it would make a difference.
> >>>
> >>> To put it the other way round: do you think all the places I had to
> >>> clean up are well founded decisions not to include the methods
> >>> from oop.inline.hpp?
> >>> Before my change, the caller of obj_at_put() from objArrayOop.hpp
> >>> had to include oop.inline.hpp to get it properly inlined.  Seems very
> >>> unintuitive to me.
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr16/8146401-oopInline-
> >> rt/webrev.01/src/share/vm/oops/objArrayOop.hpp.udiff.html
> >>> (I'll add the inline keyword in a follow-up change for gc files, in case
> >>> this change is accepted.)
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>     Goetz.
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> David
> >>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>      Goetz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2016 05:59
> >>>>>> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; hotspot-
> >> runtime-
> >>>>>> dev at openjdk.java.net
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: RFR(L): 8146401: Clean up oop.hpp: add inline directives
> >> and
> >>>> fix
> >>>>>> header files
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Goetz,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/01/2016 1:44 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Several recent changes cleaned up includes of oop.inline.hpp in
> real
> >> .hpp
> >>>>>> header file.
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, the 'inline' qualifier is added to the function
> >>>>>> implementations
> >>>>>>> in oop.inline.hpp instead of to the declarations in oop.hpp.
> Therefore,
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> compiler can not detect failing inlines properly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This change moves the inline directive from oop.inline.hpp to
> >> oop.hpp.
> >>>>>> Also
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This seems contrary to the C++ FAQ:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/inline-functions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The declaration in the .hpp should not have inline, only the
> definition,
> >>>>>> which in our case is in the .inline.hpp file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any code that includes the .inline.hpp will have seen the definition
> of
> >>>>>> the inline function prior to its use - as long as the includes are
> correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> David
> >>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it sorts the methods in oop.inline.hpp as they are sorted in
> oop.hpp.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Further, it moves a row of calls from hpp files to inline.hpp or .cpp
> >> files.
> >>>>>>> I put oop.inline.hpp into serviceUtil.hpp.  This is not clean, but this
> is a
> >>>>>>> very small .hpp file and no .cpp file exists.  So I think this is
> acceptable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, I put oop.inline.hpp into jvmciJavaClasses.hpp.  I don't want
> to
> >> do
> >>>>>>> bigger changes to this file in the rt repo, because jvmci is subject to
> >>>>>>> freqent changes recently.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The following methods were moved to .cpp files:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ProtectionDomainCacheTable::compute_hash()
> >>>>>>> ProtectionDomainCacheTable::index_for()
> >>>>>>> typeArrayOopDesc::object_size()
> >>>>>>> This is called only once outside .cpp file:
> >>>>>>> CallSiteDepChange::CallSiteDepChange()
> >>>>>>> This is only called in .cpp file
> >>>>>>> ConstantPool::string_at_put()
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If someone considers not inlining these harmful to performance,
> >>>>>>> I will add a new .inline.hpp file for them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please review this change.  I please need a sponsor.
> >>>>>>> There are no functional edits, so it should be simple to review.
> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr16/8146401-oopInline-
> >>>> rt/webrev.01/
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>       Goetz.
> >>>>>>>