8356780: PhaseMacroExpand::_has_locks is unused

[benoitmaillard]

This PR removes the unused field PhaseMacroExpand::_has_locks

Thanks!

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8356780: PhaseMacroExpand::_has_locks is unused (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Christian Hagedorn (@chhagedorn - Reviewer)
• Vladimir Kozlov (@vnkozlov - Reviewer)
• Marc Chevalier (@marc-chevalier - Committer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25669/head:pull/25669
$ git checkout pull/25669

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25669
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25669/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25669

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25669

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25669.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back benoitmaillard! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@benoitmaillard This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8356780: PhaseMacroExpand::_has_locks is unused

Reviewed-by: chagedorn, kvn, mchevalier

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 6 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 026975a: 8358721: Update JCov for class file version 70
• 8adb052: 8341778: Some javac tests ignore the result of JavacTask::call
• 9658cec: 8358685: [TEST] AOTLoggingTag.java failed with missing log message
• ... and 3 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/bb2611ad43a2feaebc2246fdbac2179a40115d67...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@chhagedorn, @vnkozlov, @marc-chevalier) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[openjdk]

@benoitmaillard The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (0158481e)
• 01: Full - Incremental (90c94a25)
• 00: Full (4e7ee579)

[mhaessig]

Thank you for working on this! Your change looks good.

However, it would be nice if you could mention in the PR description what testing you ran. Also, you forgot to update the copyright year in opto/macro.hpp.

[chhagedorn]

Looks good! Since you also fuse the two loops, I suggest to update the PR/JBS title accordingly.

[vnkozlov]

They are dependent. Allocation may be referenced in locks and will not be eliminated if locks are still in graph. That is why locks are eliminated first,

[benoitmaillard]

I have reverted the changes related to the fusing of the two loops, and have created a new issue to investigate this separately: JDK-8358788

[marc-chevalier]

Seems safe and it does what it says. Interestingly, the cases are now here only for an assert. I guess that's still good to have and it's pretty harmless: in product, the assert won't exist and it will just be an immediate break.

[vnkozlov]

Good.