RFR: 8238761: Asynchronous handshakes [v4]

[Coleen Phillimore]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 07:20:30 GMT, Robbin Ehn <rehn at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> FilterQueue<HandshakeOperation*> _queue;
>>   JavaThread* _handshakee;
>>   Mutex           _lock;
>>   Thread*       _active_handshaker;
>> 
>> Isn't this nicer? (it didn't keep the formatting in the comment)
>
> The order of members matter since C++ initialize them in declared order.
> My opinion when changing this was that it was easier to read when passing the only argument to the first member being
> initialized, thus _handshakee must be first member.
> But I should init _active_handshaker in constructor, so added that and lined-up.
> 
> So before I do any such change please reflect over how the constructor will look like.

I don't understand, you'd have to rearrange the initializers in the constructor too, but I don't see any order
dependance.  Moving over _lock  helps, so this is fine.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/151