RFR: 8189171: Move GC argument processing into GC specific classes

[Roman Kennke]

Hi Bob,
thanks for letting me know.

I filed: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191424
and posted for review: 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2017-November/020784.html

Thanks, Roman

> Roman,
>
> It looks like this change may have caused the build of the minimal VM to
> fail.  The minimal VM is no longer a configuration that we regularly build and test
> but it is still a build option that can be selected via "--with-jvm-variants=minimal1"
>
>
> /scratch/users/bobv/jdk10hs/open/src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/gcArguments.cpp: In static member function 'static jint GCArguments::initialize()':
> /scratch/users/bobv/jdk10hs/open/src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/gcArguments.cpp:113:17: error: 'defaultStream' has not been declared
>       jio_fprintf(defaultStream::error_stream(), "UseParallelGC not supported in this VM.\n");
>                   ^
> /scratch/users/bobv/jdk10hs/open/src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/gcArguments.cpp:116:17: error: 'defaultStream' has not been declared
>       jio_fprintf(defaultStream::error_stream(), "UseG1GC not supported in this VM.\n");
>                   ^
> /scratch/users/bobv/jdk10hs/open/src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/gcArguments.cpp:119:17: error: 'defaultStream' has not been declared
>       jio_fprintf(defaultStream::error_stream(), "UseConcMarkSweepGC not supported in this VM.\n");
>                   ^
> gmake[3]: *** [/scratch/users/bobv/jdk10hs/build/b00/linux-x64-minimal1/hotspot/variant-minimal/libjvm/objs/gcArguments.o] Error 1
>
> Bob.
>
>
>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 6:01 AM, Roman Kennke <rkennke at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Per & Erik,
>>
>> thanks for the reviews!
>>
>> Now I need a sponsor.
>>
>> Final webrev (same as before, including Reviewed-by line):
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/8189171/webrev.05/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erkennke/8189171/webrev.05/>
>>
>> Thanks, Roman
>>
>>
>>> Looks good Roman!
>>>
>>> /Per
>>>
>>> On 2017-11-06 12:13, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>>> Am 26.10.2017 um 11:43 schrieb Per Liden:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-10-25 18:11, Erik Osterlund wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> So let me just put your changes up for review (again), if you don't
>>>>>>> mind:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Full webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8189171/webrev.03/
>>>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eeosterlund/8189171/webrev.03/>
>>>>> I like this. Just two naming suggestions:
>>>>>
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/gc/shared/gcArguments.hpp:
>>>>>
>>>>>    39   static jint create_instance();
>>>>>    40   static bool is_initialized();
>>>>>    41   static GCArguments* instance();
>>>>>
>>>>> Could we call these:
>>>>>
>>>>>    39   static jint initialize();
>>>>>    40   static bool is_initialized();
>>>>>    41   static GCArguments* arguments();
>>>>>
>>>>> Reasoning: initialize() maps better to its companion is_initialized().
>>>>> GCArguments::arguments() maps better to the existing patterns we have
>>>>> with CollectedHeap::heap().
>>>> Ok, that sounds good to me. Actually, it's almost full-circle back to my
>>>> original proposal ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Differential:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/8189171/webrev.04.diff/
>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erkennke/8189171/webrev.04.diff/>
>>>> Full:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/8189171/webrev.04/
>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erkennke/8189171/webrev.04/>
>>>>
>>>> Ok to push now?
>>>>
>>>> Roman
>>