RRF: JEP-271: Unified GC Logging

[Bengt Rutisson]

Hi everyone,

Here is an updated webrev based on the comments from the first review. 
The changes that have been discussed have only been to the hotspot repo:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.01/webrev.01/

The changes to the JDK repo are the same as in the first webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.00/jdk-webrev.00/


Some partial diffs to make it easier for those who already looked at the 
first webrev.

The unified logging framework was changed in the way it handles the 
develop logging. Here are the changes I had to do to accommodate the new 
develop logging:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.01/webrev.01-develop-logging

Here are the changes I have made to address comments in the code (based 
on top of the develop logging changes):

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.01/webrev.00-01-code-diff

And here are the changes that David has made to address comment in the 
tests:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.01/webrev.00-01-test-diff

Enjoy!
Bengt

On 2015-11-19 16:29, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> After three pre-reviews it is time for the fist official review 
> request for JEP-271 Unified GC Logging.
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/271
>
> Most code changes are in the hotspot code:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.00/webrev.00/
>
> Some tests in the JDK repo have been updated:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.00/jdk-webrev.00/
>
> As with the pre-reviews I have put togther some examples of what the 
> new logging looks like:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~brutisso/JEP-271/review.00/compare.html
>
> The intent is that this should cover the bulk of the logging changes. 
> There will most definitely be some follow up changes where we fix 
> details in the log messages etc.
>
> Among many other old logging flags this changeset removes the two 
> flags PringGC and PrintGCDetails. These two will be added back with a 
> follow up changeset, but when they are added back they will be marked 
> as deprecated.
>
> The reason for first removing them and then adding them back is to get 
> testing without these flags. That way we will know that we clean out 
> all usages of these flags from our testing.
>
> Thanks,
> Bengt