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

[Erik Österlund]

Hi Coleen,

Thanks for the review.

/Erik

On 2018-01-11 13:22, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>
>