RFR (S): JDK-8129855: -XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions hides out of range VM options.

[Dmitry Dmitriev]

Hi Gerard,

Rev2 looks good to me!

Regards,
Dmitry

On 22.10.2015 20:34, gerard ziemski wrote:
> Thank you Dan!
>
> I fixed the comments and filed 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8140359 as a follow-up to 
> address get_locked_message_ext()
>
>
> cheers
>
>
> On 10/22/2015 12:04 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> On 10/22/15, 10:26 AM, gerard ziemski wrote:
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is a rev2 updated with fixes based mainly on Dan's feedback. It 
>>> has 3 changes compared to rev1:
>>>
>>> #1 Fixed IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions.java test cases by correctly 
>>> setting the flags [Dan Daugherty]
>>>
>>> #2 Added another set of test cases, and rearranged them to keep 
>>> types together.
>>>
>>> #3 Fixed test/compiler/membars/DekkerTest since now that the 
>>> IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions works differently we have to
>>> re-arrange the flags to make CICompilerCount=1 a valid value.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gziemski/8129855_rev2
>>
>> src/share/vm/runtime/arguments.cpp
>>      No comments.
>>
>> src/share/vm/runtime/globals.cpp
>>      L336:   get_locked_message_ext(buf, buflen);
>>      L337:   return Flag::NONE;
>>          It still feels strange to not get a return value from
>>          get_locked_message_ext() and always return Flag::NONE
>>          in this case.
>>
>>          If not addressed here, it would be good to file a follow
>>          up bug that clarify how the extension mechanism fits in
>>          with the base mechanism.
>>
>> src/share/vm/runtime/globals.hpp
>>      No comments.
>>
>> test/compiler/membars/DekkerTest.java
>>      Perfect example of why left-to-right order eval means something.
>>      No other comments.
>>
>> test/runtime/CommandLine/IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions.java
>>      L90: #1.4 develop & notproduct flag on product VM:
>>      L91: develop & !product_build        notproduct & !product_build
>>      L96: if (product) {
>>          The comment doesn't match the test code. This is not
>>          a !product_build config.
>>
>>      L119: #1.6 malformed develop & notproduct flag on product VM:
>>      L120: develop & !product_build          .notproduct & 
>> !product_build
>>      L125: if (product) {
>>          The comment doesn't match the test code. This is not
>>          a !product_build config.
>>
>>          Also L120 has '.notproduct' should be 'notproduct'.
>>
>> Thumbs up. If you fix the above comment mis-matches, I don't
>> need to see another webrev.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> On 09/28/2015 04:55 PM, gerard ziemski wrote:
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We are fixing how IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions treats those flags 
>>>> whose values are out of range. Before the fix, the VM
>>>> would continue even if flag’s value was out of range, ex:
>>>>
>>>> java_old -XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions -XX:MinTLABSize=0 -version
>>>> size_t MinTLABSize=0 is outside the allowed range [ 1 ... 4294967295 ]
>>>> java version "1.9.0-internal-fastdebug"
>>>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 
>>>> 1.9.0-internal-fastdebug-20150624183527.jesper.main2rt-b00)
>>>> Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 
>>>> 1.9.0-internal-fastdebug-20150624183527.jesper.main2rt-b00, mixed 
>>>> mode)
>>>>
>>>> now, we correctly exit the VM with an error, ex:
>>>>
>>>> java_new -XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions -XX:MinTLABSize=0 -version
>>>> size_t MinTLABSize=0 is outside the allowed range [ 1 ... 
>>>> 18446744073709551615 ]
>>>> Improperly specified VM option 'MinTLABSize=0'
>>>> Error: Could not create the Java Virtual Machine.
>>>> Error: A fatal exception has occurred. Program will exit.
>>>>
>>>> In addition IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions nows strictly follows the 
>>>> spec as outlined in JDK-8129855. The behavior changes
>>>> depending on whether the build is product or debug.
>>>>
>>>> We also introduce a new test that verifies all known use cases that 
>>>> we care about.
>>>>
>>>> References:
>>>>       bugid: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129855
>>>>      webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gziemski/8129855_rev0
>>>> discussion: 
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-June/019213.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Passes "JPRT hotspot" and "RBT testlist,noncolo.testlist quick"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>
>>