RFR: 8238988: Rename thread "in stack" methods and add in_stack_range

[David Holmes]

PS. I fixed the bug synopsis to read is_in_stack_range.

David

On 17/02/2020 3:18 pm, David Holmes wrote:
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238988
> 
> Following on from JDK-8234372 this change introduces some renaming:
> 
> Thread::is_in_stack -> Thread::is_in_live_stack
> Thread::on_local_stack -> Thread::is_in_full_stack
> 
> and then introduces private:
> 
>   bool is_in_stack_range(address adr, address limit, bool inclusive)
> 
> with public wrappers:
> 
> bool is_in_stack_range_incl(address adr, address limit)
> bool is_in_stack_range_excl(address adr, address limit)
> 
> and reimplements the existing "in stack" methods using is_in_stack_range().
> 
> This can be seen in the phase 1 webrev:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8238988/webrev.v1/
> 
> (There are some copyright updates missing in phase 1 but they are in the 
> phase 2 full webrev.)
> 
> Phase 2 then replaces all the explicit stack range checks (x < 
> stack_base() && x >= limit) with use of the new public methods.
> 
> Incremental webrev from phase 1:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8238988/webrev.v2-incr/
> 
> Full webrev for phases 1 & 2:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8238988/webrev.v2/
> 
> A few notes:
> 
> - some checks for x < stack_base() are now is_in_full_stack(x), adding 
> the missing/implied check against stack_end() even though it may not 
> strictly be needed in some cases
> - some checks for x != NULL are removed as it is implicit in the range 
> check
> - removed some redundant assertions that stack_base() != NULL as that 
> assertion is already executed in the "in stack" functions.
> - removed redundant os::Solaris::valid_stack_address ands replaced with 
> thread method usage
> 
> Testing:
>   - tier 1-3 on x86 and sparc platforms
>   - build test on ARM 32-bit, Aarch64, PPC64le and S390X.
> 
> Non-x86/sparc platforms need testing by folk who have access to those 
> platforms - thanks.
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> -----