RFR(L) 8136930: Simplify use of module-system options by custom launchers

[Coleen Phillimore]

On 7/21/16 5:37 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
>
> On 7/21/16 1:39 PM, harold seigel wrote:
>> Hi Coleen,
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing my changes!
>>
>> Please see comments inline.
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/2016 5:47 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8136930.hs/src/share/vm/runtime/arguments.cpp.udiff.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> To check if is_internal_module_property, the numbered ones go to 
>>> is_matching_numbered_property, but do you also want to disallow:
>>>
>>> jdk.module.addreads.foo   or jdk.module.addreads (with no number?)
>> We don't ignore properties like these because they do not have 
>> special meaning to the jdk.  I didn't want to ignore properties just 
>> because they are very similar to ones that do get ignored.
>
> Don't we own the jdk.module namespace and from these patterns it's 
> clear that it's an error, although we won't flag it, and somebody 
> might get results that are unexpected.
>
> I think you should flag these.

You could make this a follow-on bug.

Coleen

>
>>>
>>> Why aren't addmods and limitmods allowed be specified more than once 
>>> on the command line and handled like the other ones?
>> Please see Alan's response.  Should I open an RFE for allowing 
>> multiple --add-modules options?
>
> Yes, and you can discuss it there.
>
>>>
>>> + // options. For example: use "--add-modules java.sql", not 
>>> "-Djdk.module.addmods=java.sql"
>>>
>>> Does this comment need an equal sign?
>> Yes, done.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8136930.hs/test/compiler/unsafe/UnsafeGetConstantField.java.udiff.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you fix the indentation?
>> Done.
>>>
>>> We should add an option -XX:+UseUnsafe to be a shortcut for this:
>>>
>>> --add-exports=java.base/jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED
>> Please see Alan's response.
>
> I was looking at all the tests and was wondering if there's a way for 
> some other option to imply these -add-exports options, so we wouldn't 
> need so many.  But the patterns aren't all the same in all the tests, 
> except the ALL-UNNAMED bit.
>
> I've Reviewed this now.
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The rest looks good.   This implementation looks very clean.
>> Thanks! Harold
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/17/16 7:05 PM, harold seigel wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please review these Hotspot VM only changes to process the seven 
>>>> module-specific options that have been renamed to have gnu-like 
>>>> names.  JDK changes for this bug will be reviewed separately.
>>>>
>>>> Descriptions of these options are here 
>>>> <http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/293>.  For these six options, 
>>>> --module-path, --upgrade-module-path, --add-modules, 
>>>> --limit-modules, --add-reads, and --add-exports, the JVM just sets 
>>>> a system property.  For the --patch-module option, the JVM sets a 
>>>> system property and then processes the option in the same way as 
>>>> when it was named -Xpatch.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, the JVM now checks properties specified on the 
>>>> command line.  If a property matches one of the properties used by 
>>>> one of the above options then the JVM ignores the property. This 
>>>> forces users to use the explicit option when wanting to do things 
>>>> like add a module or a package export.
>>>>
>>>> The RFR contains two new tests.  Also, many existing tests were 
>>>> changed to use the new option names.
>>>>
>>>> JBS Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136930
>>>>
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8136930.hs/
>>>>
>>>> The changes were tested with the JCK lang and VM tests, the JTreg 
>>>> hotspot tests, and the RBT hotspot nightlies.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Harold
>>>
>>
>