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

[John Coomes]

Coleen Phillimore (coleen.phillimore at oracle.com) wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I should have clarified - I wasn't suggesting that you do this
now.

-John