Request for review (xs) 7021653: Parfait issue in hotspot/src/share/vm/oops/methodDataOops.hpp

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 3/3/2011 4:19 PM, John Coomes wrote:
> David Holmes (David.Holmes at oracle.com) wrote:
>> John Coomes said the following on 03/04/11 06:14:
>>> Coleen Phillimore (coleen.phillimore at oracle.com) wrote:
>>>> Summary: Fix compilation error(s)
>>>>
>>>> Also fix new random gcc compiler error in os::free() in gcc 4.4.1.
>>>>
>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/7021653/
>>>> bug link at http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7021653
>>>>
>>>> Tested on windows and solaris 64 bit (actually tested with an assert
>>>> that the old calculation == new one).
>>> %x expects an unsigned value, so better to cast to uintptr_t (a total
>>> nit, but gcc is becoming increasingly nit-picky).  Other than that,
>>> looks good.
>> Agreed on both counts. It's already pretty unpleasant that when using
>> PTR_FORMAT we have to cast pointer types to intptr_t, but if gcc gets
>> even pickier we'll have to step through all those casts and change them
>> to uintptr_t. :(
>>
>> Maybe it's time to revisit the attempt to use %p? We should have a good
>> idea which of our compilers add the 0x and which do not, and we should
>> be able to specify a build flag to select it. (Not that I'm volunteering
>> :) )
> We could fairly easily use compiler-specific PTR_FORMAT macros to deal
> with the leading 0x, 0-padding, etc.  That would help, except for null
> pointers.  With gcc/glibc, %p prints '(nil)' for null values.  Ugh.
> Given that, I don't see a way to get consistent output across
> platforms with %p.

This is a bigger project than it appears, maybe someone can do this when 
the next gcc error message comes along.

Coleen
> -John
>