-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
8357944: Remove unused CollectedHeap::is_maximal_no_gc #25482
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
👋 Welcome back ayang! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@albertnetymk 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:
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 92 new commits pushed to the
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. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
@albertnetymk The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. This code is quite old, but I wonder if it's also appropriate to rename is_maximal_no_gc()
to something more descriptive, maybe is_expandable()
and reverse the check, which I think looks better at the callers of is_maximal_no_gc()
. Not sure if that should be done separately or not though, and I don't have strong opinions on G1 code.
I agree the current name is not very nice. I am leaned towards changing its return-type also: |
Thanks for review. /integrate |
Going to push as commit 6418306.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@albertnetymk Pushed as commit 6418306. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Removing effectively dead code/API for all GCs except G1.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25482/head:pull/25482
$ git checkout pull/25482
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25482
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25482/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25482
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25482
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25482.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment