On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:03:34 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplum...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Before I forgot to answer you, @plummercj >> I completely agree with your comment about cleaning up wrapper subclasses >> which do nothing. >> >> I think some wrapper subclasses for CodeBlob were kept because of `is*()` >> which were used only in `PStack` to print name. Why not use `getName()` for >> this purpose without big `if/else` there? >> >> An other purpose could be a place holder for additional information in a >> future which never come. >> >> Other wrapper provides information available in `CodeBlob`. Like >> `RuntimeStub. callerMustGCArguments()`. `_caller_must_gc_arguments` field is >> part of VM's `CodeBlob` class for some time now. Looks like I missed change >> in SA when did change in VM. >> >> So yes, feel free to clean this up. I will help with review. > >> I think some wrapper subclasses for CodeBlob were kept because of `is*()` >> which were used only in `PStack` to print name. Why not use `getName()` for >> this purpose without big `if/else` there? > > Possibly getName() didn't exist when PStack was first written. It would be > good if PStack not only included the type name as it does now, but also the > actual name of the blob, which getName() would return. > >> An other purpose could be a place holder for additional information in a >> future which never come. > > Yes, and you also see that with the Observer registration and the `Type type > = db.lookupType(<typename>)` code, which are only needed if you are going to > lookup fields of the subtypes, which most don't ever do, yet they all have > this code. > >> Other wrapper provides information available in `CodeBlob`. Like >> `RuntimeStub. callerMustGCArguments()`. `_caller_must_gc_arguments` field is >> part of VM's `CodeBlob` class for some time now. Looks like I missed change >> in SA when did change in VM. > > Yeah, that's not working right for CodeBlob subtypes that are not > RuntimeStubs. Easy to fix though. > >> So yes, feel free to clean this up. I will help with review. > > Ok. Let me see where things are at after you are done with the PR. Thank you, @plummercj , for review. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23533#issuecomment-2666228333
