RFR: Upstream merge 2018-06-30

[Roman Kennke]

Hi Aleksey,

>> Ok, it's done. Now it's merged up to the last changeset that is common
>> between jdk/jdk and jdk/jdk11, which is this one:
>>
>> changeset:   51321:95aad0c785e4
>> user:        gadams
>> date:        Thu Jun 28 10:31:39 2018 -0400
>> summary:     8205508:
>> hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdb/exclude/exclude001/exclude001.java
>> fails with Prompt is not received during 300200 milliseconds.
>>
>> From there we can fork shenandoah/jdk11 and update that one from
>> jdk/jdk11, and pull the remaining stuff from jdk/jdk into shenandoah/jdk.
>>
>> Full list of changesets:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/upstream-merge-2018-06-30/outgoing.txt
>>
>> The diff of Shenandoah changes (now including x86 and aarch64 too):
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/upstream-merge-2018-06-30/shenandoah-changes.patch
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Minor nits:
> 
>  *) Awkward indents in closures, e.g.:

Right. I wanted to do this, but then forgot. Fixed.

>  *) Why the rename ShenandoahVerifyOopClosure::verify -> verify_work? It garbled all the indents in
> shenandoahVerifier.cpp. Also, "verify_work" is too verbose for a frequently-used method. Does it
> clash with some other "verify"?

Yes, it clashes with OopClosure::verify(). The new auto-inlining
machinery doesn't like that.

> Suggestion: "check".

Renamed accordingly.

> (aside: these renames masked by merges deviate
> the sh/jdk* codebases from each other -- with forethought, it is better to do the rename separately
> for backports)

Right. Sorry. It is a bit difficult when you basically realize this
after the merge is done... If you think it's important, I can extract
this and re-do the merge? Otherwise I can do this change for jdk10
separately.

Updated shenandoah-diff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/upstream-merge-2018-06-30/shenandoah-changes-02.patch

Good?

Roman