"os" - make this a real namespace?

[David Holmes]

On 20/10/2016 9:37 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 20/10/2016 6:27 PM, Rickard Bäckman wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> I tried something like that a couple of years ago and still think it is
>> a good idea.
>>
>> Link to the discussion and patches:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2013-March/008884.html
>
> Yeah but noone else seemed to like your os::pd approach :)

Sorry that was a bit too tongue in cheek.

David

> Cheers,
> David
>
>> /R
>>
>> On 10/19, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> a small question.
>>>
>>> I sometimes stumble over the fact that "os" is a class, not a namespace.
>>> And that we include the platform dependent additions into the middle of
>>> this class.
>>>
>>> This has a number of repercussions, like not being able to include the
>>> platform dependent files (os_<os>_<cpu>) directly, not being able to
>>> forward declare functions from the "os" namespace (e.g. os::malloc)
>>> etc. I
>>> also cannot split implementations from "os" functions to different
>>> implementation files without problems.
>>>
>>> It seems to me all compiler nowadays support namespaces, would it not
>>> make
>>> sense to convert "os" to a real namespace?
>>>
>>> While we are at it, what is the reason for the "<os>" sub classes? e.g.
>>> os::Bsd, os::Aix etc? It makes integrating patches between platforms
>>> difficult and, to me, does not seem to serve any clear purpose.
>>>
>>> If the purpose is to be a very low wrapper around OS particularities, it
>>> makes no sense to have them in the "os" namespace and to make them
>>> visible
>>> to the shared sections of the VM. E.g. there should be no reason to
>>> access
>>> "os::Bsd" functions from outside os/bsd/vm, or to access "os::Posix"
>>> functions outside implementations specific for Posix platforms.
>>>
>>> Thanks, and Kind Regards, Thomas