RFR(XS) 8076311: Java 9 process negative MaxTenuringThreshold in different way than Java 8

[David Holmes]

On 8/04/2015 4:40 PM, Dmitry Dmitriev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am need one more Reviewer. Can someone review this patch? Thanks!

Looks okay. In comparing to JDK 8 I note there is no longer a maximum 
MaxTenuringThreshold enforced, so presumably only negative values are 
illegal now.

Thanks,
David

> Dmitry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dmitry.dmitriev at oracle.com
> To: hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 12:50:28 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
> Subject: RFR(XS) 8076311: Java 9 process negative MaxTenuringThreshold in different way than Java 8
>
> Hello,
>
> Please review this small fix for JDK-8076311. Also, I need a sponsor for
> this fix, who can push it, because I'm not have a OpenJDK name.
>
> Fix for JDK-6521376 add explicit processing of MaxTenuringThreshold XX
> option. When bad value for MaxTenuringThreshold is passed(e.g. negative
> value for unsigned option "-XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=-1"), then function
> print warning and continue execution with default value(0). This
> behavior differs from Java 8. Java 8 process this situation in common
> way for unsigned options, i.e. print waring and reports a error. So, I
> fix Java 9 MaxTenuringThreshold option processing.
>
> Also, I add new test case to the
> test/gc/arguments/TestInitialTenuringThreshold.java to test this situation.
>
> Open webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ctornqvi/webrev/8076311/webrev.00/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ectornqvi/webrev/8076311/webrev.00/>
>
> JBS bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076311
>
> Tested: JPRT
>
> Thank you,
> Dmitry
>