RFR: String deduplication for traversal GC

[Zhengyu Gu]

Let's follow existing style. If we decide to change, we should change 
them all together.

Thanks,

-Zhengyu

On 01/30/2018 03:08 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Less clutter/boilerplate code? ;-) I guess it's mostly a matter oft taste..
> 
> Am 30. Januar 2018 21:07:20 MEZ schrieb Zhengyu Gu <zgu at redhat.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 01/30/2018 02:48 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>> Am 30.01.2018 um 20:46 schrieb Roman Kennke:
>>>> Am 30.01.2018 um 20:40 schrieb Zhengyu Gu:
>>>>> Please review the implementation of string deduplication for
>>>>> traversal GC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/shenandoah/traversal_dedup/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Test:
>>>>>
>>>>>     hotspot_gc_shenandoah (fastdebug + release)
>>>>>     specJVM with -XX:+UseStringDeduplication (fastdebug)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Zhengyu
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it should be possible to make the closure templated
>>>> instead of making multiple explicit classes, like this:
>>>>
>>>> template <bool STRDEDUP>
>>>> class ShenandoahTraversalSuperClosure .. {
>>>>
>>>> ..
>>>>      template <class T>
>>>>      void work(T* p);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and then something like:
>>>>
>>>> template <bool STRDEDUP>
>>>> class ShenandoahTraversalDedupClosure : public
>>>> ShenandoahTraversalSuperClosure<STRDEDUP> {
>>>>
>>>> I am not totally sure about how to stitch it together, but something
>>
>>>> like this should work? Or maybe it's not worth all the hassle. ?
>>>>
>>>> (Infact, I suspect something like the above would be possible for
>> the
>>>> metadata flag too...)
>>>>
>>>> Roman
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, one weirdo in this scheme is the definition of work(), which
>> would
>>> look something like:
>>>
>>> template <bool STRDEDUP>
>>> template <class T>
>>> inline void ShenandoahTraversalSuperClosure::work(T* p) {
>>
>> What's advantage of this style?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Zhengyu
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Roman
>