8254573: Shenandoah: Streamline/inline native-LRB entry point

[rkennke]

We currently do several calls between the native-LRB entry point and the actual implementation, presumably to resolve the templated versions. This can be simplified.

Testing: hotspot_gc_shenandoah

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed

Testing

	Linux x64	Windows x64	macOS x64
Build	✔️ (5/5 passed)	⏳ (2/2 running)	✔️ (2/2 passed)
Test (tier1)	⏳ (8/9 running)		⏳ (6/9 running)

Issue

• JDK-8254573: Shenandoah: Streamline/inline native-LRB entry point

Reviewers

• Aleksey Shipilev (@shipilev - Reviewer)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/604/head:pull/604
$ git checkout pull/604

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back rkennke! 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]

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

• hotspot-gc
• 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 (e027486)

[shipilev]

This looks fine. I think it was this way because JRT_LEAF had opinions about templated methods. But I see there is the same thing happens for SBS::load_reference_barrier_mutator, so it should be fine.

[openjdk]

@rkennke 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:

8254573: Shenandoah: Streamline/inline native-LRB entry point

Reviewed-by: shade

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 4 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• a6c23b7: 8253923: C2 doesn't always run loop opts for compilations that include loops
• dfe8ba6: 8254320: Shenandoah: C2 native LRB should activate for non-cset objects
• 295a44a: 8254558: Remove unimplemented Arguments::do_pd_flag_adjustments
• 0fab73e: 8254560: Shenandoah: Concurrent Strong Roots logging is incorrect

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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 master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[rkennke]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@rkennke Since your change was applied there have been 4 commits pushed to the master branch:

• a6c23b7: 8253923: C2 doesn't always run loop opts for compilations that include loops
• dfe8ba6: 8254320: Shenandoah: C2 native LRB should activate for non-cset objects
• 295a44a: 8254558: Remove unimplemented Arguments::do_pd_flag_adjustments
• 0fab73e: 8254560: Shenandoah: Concurrent Strong Roots logging is incorrect

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 6620b61.

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