RFR 7179383 (was Re: -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize argument parsing)

[David Holmes]

Sorry for the delay on this Chris. I've filed 7179383 and generated a 
webrev:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7179383/webrev/

Still need an additional runtime reviewer.

Thanks,
David

On 11/06/2012 11:18 PM, Chris Dennis wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:41 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
>> On 8/06/2012 12:20 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2012 14:28, Chris Dennis wrote:
>>>> Yes, I'm listed under "Terracotta Inc. (Christopher Dennis)".
>>>>
>>>> There is one additional complication to this in that the
>>>> LimitDirectMemory test in the jdk sources is currently broken. The
>>>> patch below "fixes" the test - but leaves two open questions:
>>>>
>>>> What should the grep be looking for? This is JDK test asserting on
>>>> output generated by Hotspot - that seems a little screwed up to me,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>> it might be nicer to just check the exit code and not depend on the
>>> error message.
>>
>> Agreed. Seems cleaner.
> Okay, I'll prepare a second jdk patch that modifies this test to use the exit value of the JVM as the indicator of startup failure.  Once we have a bug-id for this issue I'll propose the test patch on the relevant mailing list referencing the upcoming behavior change and our desire for a more hotspot-neutral test assertion.
>
> Alan: What would the correct forest to provide and patch against and which mailing list should I post it to?
>
>>
>>> Just on logistics, as hotspot and jdk changes take a
>>> different route into master it means that we'll need to wait until the
>>> hotspot changes get to jdk8/jdk8 (and probably down to jdk8/tl) before
>>> pushing a change to the LimitDirectMemory.sh test.
>>
>> Also is the hotspot fix targeted for 8 and 7u, or just 8?
> I'm not sure if this question was intended for me, but as far as I'm aware currently this change doesn't even have a bug-id.  Personally, I don't see the pressing need to have it merged back to 7u, and not doing so would help mitigate the backwards-compatibility issue of the subtle changes it makes in the behavior of the switch.
>
>
>>
>> Still need additional reviewer from runtime - thanks.
>>
>> David
>>
>>> -Alan
>