Disallow flags with extra characters appended

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

Hi David,

Thanks for the pointer to JDK-6522873!

Not fixing this with the motivation "due to the risk of breaking existing 
applications/scripts that already has the incorrect options specified" is 
ridiculous imho.

As I wrote in the bug just now:
We have to stop being so scared about fixing bugs. Fixing a bug like this in a 
major version (9) should cause minimal problems since people will have to 
re-certify their applications and change the command lines anyway to upgrade 
from 8 to 9.

Fixing this bug will make some people go "Oh, I made a typo" and fix it. Not 
fixing this bug will make people go "Hey, we have been running with the wrong 
settings for two years!! Why didn't this $#%@#$# VM say something?!?!"

Dear runtime team, please consider reopening this bug.

Thanks,
/Jesper


David Holmes skrev 5/12/14 04:46:
> Hi Jesper,
>
> On 5/12/2014 11:38 AM, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today some (not all) flags are accepted even though they have random
>> characters appended to them. Some examples are -Xconcgc, -Xcomp,
>> -Xboundthreads, -XX:+AlwaysTenure etc which will also be accepted when
>> written for instance -Xconcgcnoway, -Xcomposer, -Xboundthreadstodogs or
>> -XX:+AlwaysTenureAtBlueMoon
>>
>> There is a potential problem here since we will also accept things like
>> -XX:+ExtendedDTraceProbes-XX:+UseG1GC without saying a word (and of
>> course without running with G1).
>>
>> I have a suggestion for a fix here:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jwilhelm/commandLineFlag/webrev.00/
>>
>> Would this be an acceptable solution?
>
> I'm somewhat surprised the single name version of match_option didn't also 
> have the _tail_allowed flag - seems rather unbalanced. But what you have is 
> cleaner I think. Though I would suggest moving you new version:
>
>  static bool match_option(const JavaVMOption *option, const char* name) {
>
> to immediately after the tail version (and before the _tail_allowed multi-name 
> version), which a suitable comment added.
>
> That said ...
>
>> I couldn't find one, but since this has been around for quite some time
>> I wonder if there is a bug for this already. If not I'll create one.
>
> ... this has already been rejected
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6522873
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> Thanks,
>> /Jesper
>>