RFR(S): 8194736: Refactor weak oops in ProtectionDomain table to use the Access API

[coleen.phillimore at oracle.com]

Hi, Yes, the incremental change looks good.

Thanks,
Coleen

On 1/11/18 5:24 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
> Hi Coleen,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> New full webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8194736/webrev.01/
>
> New incremental webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8194736/webrev.00_01/
>
> On 2018-01-10 14:22, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>> So this looks okay.  Does anything ever call 
>> ProtectionDomainEntry::object() and keep it alive?
>
> No.
>
>> It looks like there are still literal() calls in 
>> ProtectionDomainCacheEntry though.  Can you stomp these out first?
>
> Fixed.
>
>>
>>  void ProtectionDomainCacheEntry::verify() {
>>    guarantee(oopDesc::is_oop(literal()), "must be an oop");
>>  }
>>
>>
>> I still think this is confusing and adds too much conceptual overhead 
>> to the runtime code,  but I plan on addressing this with WeakHandles 
>> (vm weak oops with OopStorage) in these tables.
>
> I am looking forward to that!
>
> Thanks,
> /Erik
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Coleen
>>
>> On 1/8/18 9:00 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Like other tables containing weak oop references, the 
>>> ProtectionDomain table should use the Access API.
>>> This is a patch that does that, in a fashion very similar to what 
>>> has been done to other weak tables recently.
>>>
>>> Bug:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8194736
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8194736/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Erik
>>
>