8368966: Remove spurious VMStructs friends

[fandreuz]

In this PR I propose a small clean up to remove several spurious friends of VMStructs. Either I could not find any reference to them in vmStructs*, or no private symbols is mentioned.

Passes tier1 and tier2 (fastdebug).

---

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-8368966: Remove spurious VMStructs friends (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Stefan Karlsson (@stefank - Reviewer)
• Albert Mingkun Yang (@albertnetymk - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27583/head:pull/27583
$ git checkout pull/27583

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/27583
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27583/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 27583

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 27583

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27583.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back fandreuzzi! 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]

@fandreuz 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:

8368966: Remove spurious VMStructs friends

Reviewed-by: stefank, ayang

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 25 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 5251405: 8368848: JShell's code completion not always working for multi-snippet inputs
• fa3af82: 8338197: [ubsan] ad_x86.hpp:6417:11: runtime error: shift exponent 100 is too large for 32-bit type 'unsigned int'
• 4df41d2: 8368698: runtime/cds/appcds/aotCache/OldClassSupport.java assert(can_add()) failed: Cannot add TrainingData objects
• ... and 22 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/07ea907e4fc8aa8fda01d8fe64c599f9d944eef9...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 (@stefank, @albertnetymk) 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]

@fandreuz The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot
• shenandoah

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

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (1f873d0d)

[stefank]

I was a bit surprised to see that you added a friend declaration. Was this done because you removed the one in the parent class?

I see that vmStructs.cpp has GrowableArray listed:

  nonstatic_field(GrowableArrayBase,           _len,                                          int)                                   \
  nonstatic_field(GrowableArrayBase,           _capacity,                                     int)                                   \
  nonstatic_field(GrowableArray<int>,          _data,                                         int*) 

So, I guess it makes sense to move it here. OTOH, the exposed _data field is inside GrowableArrayView, so maybe it would work to put the friend declaration there instead?

I guess either way is fine but there's a risk that there will be some churn about where to put the friend declaration if someone wants add one of the classes between (and including) GrowableArrayView and GrowableArray.

[fandreuz]

Was this done because you removed the one in the parent class?

Yeah that was my reasoning.

I guess either way is fine but there's a risk that there will be some churn about where to put the friend declaration if someone wants add one of the classes between (and including) GrowableArrayView and GrowableArray.

To me it looks less confusing to have the friend declaration for the type which is referenced in vmStructs. But both are legal, do you think moving the friend declaration to the type which declares the referenced field would be more appropriate? If yes, I'll track other similar patterns too.

[stefank]

I don't think such churn is important for VMStructs. Let's keep your change.

[fandreuz]

Thanks for the review @stefank.

[fandreuz]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@fandreuz
Your change (at version 1f873d0) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[albertnetymk]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit dfd3832.
Since your change was applied there have been 25 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 5251405: 8368848: JShell's code completion not always working for multi-snippet inputs
• fa3af82: 8338197: [ubsan] ad_x86.hpp:6417:11: runtime error: shift exponent 100 is too large for 32-bit type 'unsigned int'
• 4df41d2: 8368698: runtime/cds/appcds/aotCache/OldClassSupport.java assert(can_add()) failed: Cannot add TrainingData objects
• ... and 22 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/07ea907e4fc8aa8fda01d8fe64c599f9d944eef9...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@albertnetymk @fandreuz Pushed as commit dfd3832.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.