RFR: 8251850: Simplify ResourceMark constructors using delegation

[Thomas Stüfe]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:30 AM Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:

> > On Aug 22, 2020, at 2:13 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Good.
> >
> > + // Only report the first occurrence of an allocating thread that
> > + // is missing a ResourceMark, to avoid possible recursive errors
> > + // in error handling.
> >
> > The comment is clear. Should be still clear 40 years from now when we
> all moved on from git and there is only one guy left who can read git
> history :)
>
> Assuming nobody deletes most of the comment (as happened to the original
> comment) and that
> git history is still readable.  I’ve lost *so* much digital data due to
> formats becoming unreadable.
>
>
> > Very minor nit: comment is somewhat imprecise here:
> >
> > +    case 18: {
> > +      // Allocation from resource area without a ResourceMark.
> > +      Thread::current()->resource_area()->allocate_bytes(100);
> > +      break;
> > +    }
> >
> > because this is only true if this function is called from argument
> handling where no RM has been established yet.
>
> Good point.  I've tweaked the code and the comment.
>
> New webrevs:
> full: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8251850/open.03/
> incr: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8251850/open.03.inc/
>
> Reran the ErrorHandler.java test locally.
>
> > I am fine with this change. I leave if up to you if you change the
> comment or not.
> >
> > Cheers, Thomas
>
> Thanks, but since I (lightly) touched the code again…
>

All (still) good. Thank you for the clear comments, I wish the original
code had been this clear, would have saved us a bit of head scratching
years ago.

..Thomas