RFR: 8142976: TraceClassInitialization has been reimplemented with Unified Logging.

[Coleen Phillimore]

Hi Max,  This looks mostly good:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/src/share/vm/classfile/verifier.cpp.udiff.html

In function log_end_verification, the indentation is wrong.  It should 
be 2 and the end } should be in column 1.

You didn't mention that we decided that if you specify 
VerboseVerification *and* -Xlog:classinit that you'll get the same 
message twice. This is because the logs can go to different places. When 
VerboseVerification is converted to UL, the logging statements will be 
more compact.

Can you fix the indentation of this line too?

*!tty->print_cr("Fail over class verification to old verifier for: %s", 
klassName);*


http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/test/logging/BadMap50.jasm.html

This has the wrong copyright header.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/test/logging/ClassInitializationTest.java.html

   30  * @run driver ClassInitializationTest


Is "driver" new?

You don't need to include these:

   34 import java.lang.ref.WeakReference;
   35 import java.lang.reflect.Method;


Otherwise, I think this looks good.

Coleen

On 11/24/15 4:27 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
> New webrev @ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit02/
> Fixed everything that I said I would fix below.
>
> On 11/24/2015 3:40 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looks mostly good, just a few comments:
>>
>> verifier.cpp
>> - at line 118 (the first "Verification for" line), it should just be 
>> "print", not "print_cr".
> Thanks. Fixed, though I wonder how much it matters.
>> - between lines 194 and 195, I think you need a ResourceMark for the 
>> LogHandle stream.
> The ResourceMark is defined already, it just isn't part of the diffs 
> because it was already there.
>> - in the sections starting at lines 179 and 608, I appreciate that 
>> you were minimizing the number of lines, but I think it's a bad idea 
>> to have duplicates of the logged strings. Do you think you could 
>> define the strings outside of the logging and pass it to both 
>> functions? Another possible solution would be to make a function to 
>> do that with a signature like
>>     void log_multiple(bool enabled1, outputStream* st1, bool 
>> enabled2, outputStream* st2, char* msg);
>> that could do this in a more formalized manner. A function like this 
>> could be useful for other similar situations as well while we're 
>> converting flags one by one. Or what are your thoughts on that?
> Two reasons why I don't think we should do that.
>     (1) We don't want to evaluate format strings unless something is 
> being logged. I guess if you can find a way to avoid doing this while 
> still making the code look nicer then that is OK. I think it would be 
> just as bad to write extra lines of code just to ensure that a short 
> string isn't duplicated.
>     (2) We do not guarantee that these two messages will always be the 
> same. A conversation I had with Coleen led me to believe we should 
> keep the messages separate.
>> - I think the reordered nesting makes sense.
>>
>> ClassInitializationTest.java
>> - nit: can you move the ");"s from the process builder lines onto the 
>> lines before them?
> OK.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rachel
>>
>> On 11/24/2015 3:09 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> Please review my new unified logging code:
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8142976
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/ulclassinit01/src/share/vm/classfile/verifier.cpp.cdiff.html 
>>>
>>> Summary: -XX:+TraceClassInitialization logging has been 
>>> reimplemented using unified logging under the classinit tag.
>>>
>>> In the segment with recursive verification (see verifier.cpp) I 
>>> reordered the nested if statement to check 
>>> was_recursively_verified() first. I valued clean code over 
>>> potentially avoiding a function call to was_recursively_verified.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Tested with:
>>> jtreg hotspot tests
>>> new jtreg test for classinit tag
>>> performance testing with refworkload.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Max
>>
>