RFR: 8144874: Reimplement TraceClassResolution with UL

[Coleen Phillimore]

Are there really blank lines in between each line?  Are the lines really 
duplicate like that?

In your before repository, are these lines also duplicate with 
-XX:+TraceClassResolution?

thanks,
Coleen

On 12/21/15 10:19 AM, Max Ockner wrote:
> Here is a sample of the output:
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
> Properties.java:971
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
> Properties.java:971
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
> Properties.java:971
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
> Properties.java:971
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
> Properties.java:971
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
> Properties.java:971
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] sun.misc.Version 
> java.lang.StringBuilder Version.java:121
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.lang.StringLatin1 
> java.lang.String StringLatin1.java:508
>
> [1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.nio.CharBuffer 
> java.nio.HeapCharBuffer CharBuffer.java:387
>
>
>
> On 12/18/2015 12:19 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/15 12:00 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/classresolve
>>>
>>> On 12/16/2015 6:27 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>
>>>> [1] I think you need to rebase your changes and send out a new 
>>>> webrev. The latest version of argument.cpp already has these
>>>>
>>>> static AliasedFlag const aliased_jvm_logging_flags[] = {
>>>>   { "-XX:+TraceMonitorInflation", "-Xlog:monitorinflation=debug" },
>>>>   { "-XX:-TraceMonitorInflation", "-Xlog:monitorinflation=off" },
>>>>   { NULL, NULL }
>>>> };
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> which would conflict with similar lines that you added.
>>>>
>>>> [2] In the test case ClassResolutionTest.java:
>>>>
>>>> Is there any need for adding "-Xmx64m"? If not, I think it should 
>>>> be removed.
>>>
>>> Removed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [3] Also, could you send out a sample log that covers all of the 
>>>> different logging lines that you have touched?
>>>
>>> What would you like to see? The webrev contains all of the lines 
>>> that were touched, and there is only one level of logging here 
>>> (-Xlog:classresolve=info)
>> I was looking for the output of something like
>>
>>     java -Xlog:classresolve=info <some_test_program>
>>
>> Feel free to edit the output to remove the redundant lines and just 
>> show a good sample of what the output looks like. It's much easier to 
>> spot problems by looking at the output, rather than looking at the 
>> code and try to synthesize the output in my head.
>>
>> I would suggest doing the same for all other UL code reviews. It will 
>> help the reviewers a lot.
>>
>> Thanks
>> - Ioi
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the "RESOLVE" in the following output is redundant and 
>>>> should be removed.
>>>>
>>>> [classresolve] RESOLVE 
>>>> ClassResolutionTest$ClassResolutionTestMain$Thing1Handler 
>>>> ClassResolutionTest$ClassResolutionTestMain$Thing1
>>>
>>> I agree. This is now gone.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> - Ioi
>>>>
>>>> On 12/16/15 12:44 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>> Please review my code for another Unified Logging conversion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8144874
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/classresolve/
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: "-XX:+TraceClassResolution" reimplemented using Unified 
>>>>> Logging with classresolve tag and Info level. Support is 
>>>>> maintained for TraceClassResolution using the alias table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested with: Selection Resolution tests, jtreg tests. This change 
>>>>> also adds a jtreg test for the implementation of classresolve, and 
>>>>> for the maintained support of TraceClassResolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>
>>
>