RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing (original) (raw)
sangheon.kim sangheon.kim at oracle.com
Fri Sep 25 17:42:16 UTC 2015
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi Kim, Jon and Zoltan,
Here's next version of webrev. This includes:
- changed from '4' to 'wordSize' at g1_globals.hpp. (Kim and Jon? )
- removed test code which is already commented out at TestG1HeapRegionSize.java. (Zoltan)
webrev:
cr.openjdk.java.net/sangheki/8134995/webrev.01
cr.openjdk.java.net/sangheki/8134995/webrev.01_to_00
Thanks, Sangheon
On 09/24/2015 10:39 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Sep 23, 2015, at 7:57 PM, sangheon.kim <sangheon.kim at oracle.com> wrote:
I see now. jintSize would be better than 4. But I think even better would be pointer size, though I haven’t found an existing constant for that. Maybe sizeof(address)? We have 'const int wordSize = sizeof(char*)'.
The only disadvantage to that is the max value is then smaller on 64bit platforms than on 32bit platforms. I doubt the difference is interesting in practice though. I agree that there's no big difference in practice. I just wanted to avoid to have smaller upper limit for 64bit platforms. But if you prefer to use 'wordSize' instead of '4', I'm fine. It would give better readability. Yes, please.
- Previous message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Next message: RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]