RFR: 7165755 OS Information much longer on linux than other platforms

[Nils Loodin]

Updated this with pulling out some shared code to os_posix.cpp.
Some methods were different enough that this wasn't possible though.

Do you like this better?

Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nloodin/7165755/webrev.00/

On May 2, 2012, at 14:08 , Nils Loodin wrote:

> 
> On May 2, 2012, at 14:00 , David Holmes wrote:
> 
>> Hi Nils,
>> 
>> On 2/05/2012 9:56 PM, Nils Loodin wrote:
>>>> Ignoring Windows (with prints very little) I'd say it is the printing of /proc/meminfo that is the main difference. Not sure why printing that was necessary ... but if we are going to remove it I think we need to know why it was added.
>>> Yes, that's the reason.
>>> Note that nothing is removed. The method still prints exactly the same info, but I introduced another method to print briefer info, to be kinder to tool developers.
>> 
>> The current one prints /proc/meminfo. You turned that code into print_full_memory_info but in the main routine you call print_memory_info. Was that a mistake?
> 
> YES! Glad you caught that :) Guess (or hope) it would have been caught in dump testing otherwise :)
> 
> Regards,
> Nils Loodin
> 
> 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>>> I really don't want to change the output for say, hs_err files, where I believe this info is used.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> This can make it hard for tool writers to get a summary that look good and similar for multiple platforms (sizing of gui fields, having to parse info in the tool code etc)
>>>>> Lookin at the code, it's in some serious need of refactoring. It would be nice with a method to get a "brief" os info for these kinds of tools that looks similar on all platforms.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is my suggested change:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nloodin/7165755/webrev.00/
>>>> 
>>>> Seems to me some of this could be factored into the top-level OS class if we shoehorn Windows into the same shape as the other OSes ;-)
>>> This was my first attempt also, but then a lot of empty windows-methods ensued, which was kind of ugly.
>>> 
>>>> Or at least perhaps put some of the common stuff into os_posix.cpp ?
>>> There's a thought!
>>> I'll investigate that route, it could get things to look nicer.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David
>>> Regards,
>>> Nils Loodin
>>> 
>