RFR: 8146947: Remove PrintOopAddress rather than converting to UL

[Coleen Phillimore]

Yeah, I like that.  Stefan?
Coleen


On 3/23/16 5:20 PM, Rachel Protacio wrote:
> Ok, how about I just delete the repeat address in the exceptions 
> logging, i.e. the part in the parentheses? Here's a webrev with that: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8146947.01/
>
> Rachel
>
> On 3/23/2016 4:54 PM, 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.
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>