RFR: 8146947: Remove PrintOopAddress rather than converting to UL

[Stefan Karlsson]

On 23/03/16 21:54, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> I thought it was ugly.
>
> busaa027% java -Xlog:exceptions -XX:+PrintOopAddress xxx
> [0.577s][info][exceptions] Exception <a 
> 'java/lang/ClassNotFoundException'{0x0000000101c4f120}: xxx> 
> (0x0000000101c4f120)
>  thrown in interpreter method <{method} {0x00007f670f6b0d70} 
> 'findClass' '(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/Class;' in 'java/net/URLC>
>  at bci 44 for thread 0x00007f694c017000
>
>
> vs.
>
> busaa027% java -Xlog:exceptions xxx
> [0.591s][info][exceptions] Exception <a 
> 'java/lang/ClassNotFoundException': xxx> (0x0000000101c4f120)
>  thrown in interpreter method <{method} {0x00007f540b0b9d70} 
> 'findClass' '(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/Class;' in 'java/net/URLC>
>
>
> And redundant!  At least here.

Yes, that looks ugly. I think we could change the code to allow the call 
sites to turn off address printing where it doesn't make sense.

StefanK

>
> Coleen
>
> On 3/23/16 4:31 PM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 22/03/16 23:16, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/22/16 4:06 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 3/22/2016 12:09 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rachel,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8146947/src/share/vm/oops/oop.cpp.udiff.html 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the line
>>>>>
>>>>> *-if (PrintOopAddress)print_address_on(st);*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> should be removed.   For the case of a String that is in output 
>>>>> for logging, it doesn't seem like it adds anything and then you 
>>>>> wouldn't have to change the tests.
>>>>>
>>>> The part printing from the exceptions logging isn't from oop.cpp, 
>>>> but klass.cpp#Klass::print_on(). Should I delete it from there 
>>>> instead?
>>>
>>> Ah, thank you for correcting my mistake.  I think the address 
>>> shouldn't be printed in the logging statement because these are used 
>>> by people for debugging Java code, and not jvm code. So, yes, I 
>>> think it should be deleted there also.  I don't think printing these 
>>> addresses are useful for debugging anymore, since we removed PermGen.
>>
>> Is there a reason you want to remove this except for not having to 
>> change the tests? Getting object addresses printed is an important 
>> debugging tool for us in the GC team.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> StefanK
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rachel
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/22/16 10:08 AM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review this fix removing PrintOopAddress as a command line 
>>>>>> flag. The printing functionality has been made default, except 
>>>>>> for one block which has been removed (see bug description for 
>>>>>> justification). A compatibility request has been accepted with 
>>>>>> respect to this change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8146947
>>>>>> Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8146947/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Passes JPRT and RBT hotspot and non-colo testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Rachel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>