RFR: 8146632: Add descriptive error messages for removed non-product logging flags.

[Max Ockner]

I did, but it blended in with the rest of the text

My response: "Seems appropriate to report a specific error message for 9 
and then remove it for 10. If it would help, we can store a Version in 
the table to keep track of when each entry needs to be deleted, like 
what is done in the table of obsolete flags. "


On 3/16/2016 2:24 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> You should also answer David's concern.
> Coleen
>
> On 3/16/16 2:05 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/8146632.02/
>>  - Labeled #endif with // PRODUCT
>>  - refactored table lookup code to only do lookup once.
>>  - Added VerboseVerification to the table.
>>
>> Comments below.
>>
>> On 3/16/2016 1:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 16/03/2016 3:45 AM, Max Ockner wrote:
>>>> Hello again everyone!
>>>>
>>>> Please review this change which adds better error messages for
>>>> non-product flags that are now converted to Unified Logging.
>>>>
>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146632
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/8146632/
>>>>
>>>> Since these options have been removed, we want still want the vm to
>>>> crash here, but now with an error message giving the correct command
>>>> line option. The new message looks like this:
>>>>
>>>>  > TraceClassInitialization has been removed. Please use 
>>>> -Xlog:classinit
>>>> instead."
>>>>
>>>> The entire output looks like this:
>>>>
>>>>  > TraceClassInitialization has been removed. Please use 
>>>> -Xlog:classinit
>>>> instead.
>>>>  > Error: Could not create the Java Virtual Machine.
>>>>  > Error: A fatal exception has occurred. Program will exit.
>>>
>>> I'm concerned that this has introduced another variant of "flag 
>>> deprecation". It begs the question as to when this new code should 
>>> be removed. Maybe we need to add "replaced" as another type of flag 
>>> change so we can report in 9 the flag has been replaced and then in 
>>> 10 just report an "unknown option" error ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>> Seems appropriate to report a specific error message for 9 and then 
>> remove it for 10. If it would help, we can store a Version in the 
>> table to keep track of when each entry needs to be deleted, like what 
>> is done in the table of obsolete flags.
>>>> Tested with jtreg runtime tests. A new test checks for an appropriate
>>>> error message for every develop flag that has so far been converted to
>>>> logging.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>