[ping] RFR(M): 8160245: C1: Clean up platform #defines in c1_LIR.hpp.

[Tobias Hartmann]

Hi Goetz,

On 12.07.2016 15:03, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
> 
> thanks for looking at this change!  Your additional edits look good. 
> Thanks for spotting the problems.  Unfortunately, we don't have
> an aarch machine.

Sure, no problem! Actually, the 'fnoreg->encoding()' also showed up on SPARC.

> I also had problems with these asserts, as_FloatRegister(reg2)
> was not possible on ppc  because it did not like the '-1'. But that's
> fixed already.

Yes, I noticed that.

> Good to know there is no PPC32 any more. I always had to take
> care I don't break anything in this 'invisible team mate' on Power :)
> 
> Do you want me to make a new webrev with your edits? I'm 
> fine with the webrev you mailed around, though.  I tested it to
> work on ppc, and I'll run it through our tests tonight.

You don't have to create a new webrev. If all testing passed and the other reviewers agree with the latest webrev, you can send me a changeset and I'll push it.

Best regards,
Tobias

> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tobias Hartmann [mailto:tobias.hartmann at oracle.com]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. Juli 2016 14:34
>> To: Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com>; Lindenmaier, Goetz
>> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Cc: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net runtime <hotspot-runtime-
>> dev at openjdk.java.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ping] RFR(M): 8160245: C1: Clean up platform #defines in
>> c1_LIR.hpp.
>>
>> Hi Goetz,
>>
>> On 06.07.2016 00:47, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> CC to runtime too since it has changes in Interpreter and affects our closed
>> code.
>>>
>>> Hi Goetz,
>>>
>>> Please, set "Fix Version".
>>>
>>> And if it is JDK 9 you need FC Extension Request since you converted it to
>> Enhancement:
>>>
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2016-June/004443.html
>>>
>>> Someone from Oracle have to sponsor it and do related closed code
>> changes and testing.
>>
>> webrev.03 looks good to me. I did the necessary closed changes (review is
>> pending) and also adapted some of the public code.
>>
>> Incremental webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8160245/webrev.incremental/
>>
>> Full webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8160245/webrev.00/
>>
>> I removed the PPC code because since 8u33, SE Embedded releases no
>> longer include 32-bit PPC platforms (see [1], [2]) and moved the ARM specific
>> code into the closed sources. I adapted the copyright dates and refactored
>> some related code.
>>
>> Also, 'fnoreg->encoding()' fails because RegisterImpl::encoding() checks for
>> is_valid() which is false for fnoreg. We should check for
>> 'as_FloatRegister(reg2) != fnoreg'.
>>
>> Tests are running.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tobias
>>
>> [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/embedded/embedded-
>> se/downloads/index.html
>> [2] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/certconfig-
>> 2095354.html
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 7/5/16 3:47 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> could someone please have a look at this issue? I recap the description
>>>> below, and I also updated the webrev which would no more apply to
>>>> hs-comp:
>>>>
>>>> c1_LIR.hpp defines a row of functions guarded by platform
>>>> defines. This is bad style and hinders new platform ports.
>>>> (I'm working on S390 aka Z :))
>>>>
>>>> This change removes the majority of these defines. It introduces
>>>> common headers, and moves implementations to c1_LIR_<cpu>.cpp files.
>>>>
>>>> It guards single_softfp() and double_softfp() by __SOFTFP__.
>>>> This is not used in any openJdk platform. I can not test this
>>>> on the closed platforms ARM32 and PPC32.
>>>>
>>>> It removes the guard around the LIR_Address constructor. There
>>>> is no point in guarding this code, verify() assures by
>>>> assertions that it can not be misused. I also introduce a new
>>>> constructor that leaves out the scale argument and introduce
>>>> some usages on X86.
>>>>
>>>> This change also moves verify() to the new platform files. In the
>>>> header, LIR_ADDRESS_PD_VERIFY was used to guard usage
>>>> of pd_verify(). Neither of these are used in openJdk. If this define
>>>> is used in the closed ports pd_verify() must be renamed to verify().
>>>>
>>>> The code that was previously guarded by ARM, ARM32 or PPC32 is
>>>> moved to a properly guarded section in c1_LIR.cpp. Actually,
>>>> it should be moved to according new files c1_LIR_<cpu>.cpp in
>>>> the closed ports. But this way the change should basically
>>>> work for the closed ports.
>>>>
>>>> I added fnoreg on x86 to note down the code similarly on all
>>>> platforms.
>>>>
>>>> I cleaned up a flag with a limited range on PPC_32.
>>>>
>>>> generate_stack_overflow_check() in templateInterpreterGenerator.hpp
>>>> is defined with different parameters for the platforms. I added default
>>>> parameters noreg so that the signature is the same for all platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Please review this change. I please need a sponsor.
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8160245
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr16/8160245-simplifyC1/webrev.02/
>>>>
>>>> I built and tested this on linuxx86_64, solaris_sparc and
>>>> the ppc platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>   Goetz.
>>>>
>>>>