RFR XXS 8133537: clarify position of unlock options in error messages

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 8/16/15 8:09 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> As much as it pains me to do this to you do we really need two lines 
> instead of just changing eg:
>
> must be enabled via -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>
> to
>
> must be enabled by preceding it with -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions

Thought about doing it this way, but I didn't want to risk
running into a test that was looking for the specific existing
error message. As it was, I was worried about a 'golden file'
style of test, but (so far) my testing hasn't shown that
I've run into that particular style of landmine...

Also, I think having the separate line makes the requirement
stand out more. Can I convince you to move forward with the
wording change as it is right now?

Dan


>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 15/08/2015 6:53 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have a very small code review request to clarify the wording used
>> when the following options are specified in the wrong place:
>>
>>      -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>>      -XX:+UnlockExperimentalVMOptions
>>
>> Even though this is a trivial change on the surface, we will not be
>> following the HotSpot Trivial Change Rules. This means I need two
>> reviewers and one must be a (R)eviewer.
>>
>> See the bug link for examples of the new output.
>>
>> 8133537: clarify position of unlock options in error messages
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133537
>>
>> Webrev URL: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8133537-webrev/0-jdk9-hs-rt/
>>
>> Testing: JPRT -testset hotspot is in process
>>           Aurora Adhoc Runtime-SVC Nightly testing (will be submitted 
>> next)
>>           (sanity check to make sure new error message line
>>            does not break any tests)
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for any comments, questions or suggestions.
>>
>> Dan