"os" - make this a real namespace?

[Rickard Bäckman]

Yes the naming was just one try. There were multiple other ways of doing
it. Other possibilities were keeping it as is, have one file named
os_thread.hpp per platform that includes the os_thread_x86.hpp and just
have the #include "os_thread.hpp" in files that need it... Macros
*shudder*.

/R

On 10/20, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Hi Rickard,
> 
> I definitely like some of the aspects of that patch. But like others I'm
> not a big fan of renaming the files - I like the current naming scheme
> <os>_<cpu> just fine, I am used to it and it helps me in many places. I
> work both in IDEs (CDT) and on the command line with vi and grep, and
> having the platform in the file name makes it a easier to work with
> multiple platforms. I am also quite sure that having different versions of
> a file with the same name in some locations would bite us at some places.
> 
> Kind Regards, Thomas
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Rickard Bäckman <
> rickard.backman at oracle.com> 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
> >
> > /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
> >