RFR: 8346990: Remove INTX_FORMAT and UINTX_FORMAT macros [v2]

[Kim Barrett]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:23:31 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <coleenp at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> There are a lot of format modifiers that are noisy and unnecessary in the code.  This change removes the INTX variants.  It's not that disruptive even for backporting because %z modifier has been available for a long time so should backport fine.  This was mostly done with a sed script plus some hand fixups.
>> 
>> Testing mach5 and other platform cross compilations in progress.  Opening this for GHA testing.
>
> Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Fix %Ix to %zx.

Uses of `[U]INTX_FORMAT_X` have been replaced with `0x%zx`.  I mentioned the
possibility of instead using `%#zx`.  I don't know if we really want to use some of
the (to me) more obscure flag options though.

src/hotspot/cpu/x86/vm_version_x86.cpp line 1725:

> 1723:         ArrayOperationPartialInlineSize = MaxVectorSize >= 16 ? MaxVectorSize : 0;
> 1724:         if (ArrayOperationPartialInlineSize) {
> 1725:           warning("Setting ArrayOperationPartialInlineSize as MaxVectorSize%zd)", MaxVectorSize);

pre-existing: seems like there should be a separator of some kind between "MaxVectorSize" and the
value, either a space or an "=" would be okay.

src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp line 1370:

> 1368: 
> 1369: #define _UFM "%zu"
> 1370: #define _DFM "%zd"

Why not get rid of these?

src/hotspot/share/ci/ciMethodData.cpp line 788:

> 786:     // which makes comparing it with the SA version of this output
> 787:     // harder. data()'s element type is intptr_t.
> 788:     out->print(" 0x%zx", data()[i]);

Could instead use " %#zx".

src/hotspot/share/compiler/disassembler.cpp line 600:

> 598:         st->print("Stub::%s", desc->name());
> 599:         if (desc->begin() != adr) {
> 600:           st->print("%+zd " PTR_FORMAT, adr - desc->begin(), p2i(adr));

Oh, that's an interesting "abuse" of the `_W` variant.

src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/ageTable.cpp line 38:

> 36: #include "logging/logStream.hpp"
> 37: 
> 38: /* Copyright (c) 1992, 2025, Oracle and/or its affiliates, and Stanford University.

Well this is weird.  An atypical copyright down inside the file?

src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp line 3695:

> 3693: 
> 3694:   st->print(BULLET"hash_slot:         %d", hash_slot()); st->cr();
> 3695:   st->print(BULLET"secondary bitmap: " LP64_ONLY("0x%016zu") NOT_LP64("0x%08zu"), _secondary_supers_bitmap); st->cr();

Should be using "zx" rather than "zu".   I think this could be written as 
`"%#0*zx", (2 * BytesPerWord + 2), _secondary_supers_bitmap`
That's looking a lot like line noise though.  I think this and ones like it probably ought not be
changed at all.

src/hotspot/share/oops/klass.cpp line 1308:

> 1306:   if (secondary_supers() != nullptr) {
> 1307:     st->print("  - "); st->print("%d elements;", _secondary_supers->length());
> 1308:     st->print_cr(" bitmap: " LP64_ONLY("0x%016zu") NOT_LP64("0x%08zu"), _secondary_supers_bitmap);

Same as in instanceKlass - maybe this shouldn't be changed at all.

src/hotspot/share/utilities/globalDefinitions.hpp line 156:

> 154: #define UINTX_FORMAT_X_0         "0x%016"     PRIxPTR
> 155: #else
> 156: #define UINTX_FORMAT_X_0         "0x%08"      PRIxPTR

As noted in places where it's used, I'm not sure we should remove and replace UINTX_FORMAT_X_0.

test/hotspot/gtest/utilities/test_globalDefinitions.cpp line 281:

> 279: 
> 280:   check_format("%zd",                  (intx)123,         "123");
> 281:   check_format("0x%zx",                (intx)0x123,       "0x123");

Could be "%#zx".

test/hotspot/gtest/utilities/test_globalDefinitions.cpp line 286:

> 284: 
> 285:   check_format("%zu",                  (uintx)123u,       "123");
> 286:   check_format("0x%zx",                (uintx)0x123u,     "0x123");

Could be "%#zx".

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

Changes requested by kbarrett (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#pullrequestreview-2530503795
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902879593
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902886743
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902972028
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902912020
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902916165
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902944144
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902945394
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902960940
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902965078
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1902966477