RFR 8221685: -XX:BytecodeVerificationRemote and -XX:BytecodeVerificationLocal should be diagnostic options

[Harold Seigel]

Thanks David.

I'll fix the indents before pushing the change.

Harold

On 4/23/2019 9:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Harold,
>
> Looks good. Minor nit:
>
> -  product(bool, BytecodeVerificationRemote, true,     \
> +  diagnostic(bool, BytecodeVerificationRemote, true,     \
>            "Enable the Java bytecode verifier for remote classes")      \
>
>      \
> -  product(bool, BytecodeVerificationLocal, false,     \
> +  diagnostic(bool, BytecodeVerificationLocal, false,     \
>            "Enable the Java bytecode verifier for local classes")      \
>
> can you fix the indentation on the "Enable ..." lines.
>
> Thanks,
> David
> -----
>
> On 24/04/2019 4:34 am, Harold Seigel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review this change to make the hotspot BytecodeVerification* 
>> options be diagnostic.  Use of either of these options without 
>> -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions will now result in the following message:
>>
>>      > java -XX:+BytecodeVerificationLocal -version
>>      Error: VM option 'BytecodeVerificationLocal' is diagnostic and 
>> must be enabled via -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions.
>>
>> Open Webrev: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/bug_8221685/webrev/index.html
>>
>> JBS Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221685
>>
>> The fix was regression tested by running Mach5 tiers 1 and 2 tests 
>> and builds on Linux-x64, Windows, and Mac OS X, Mach5 tiers 3 -5 on 
>> Linux-x64, and by running JCK-13 Lang and VM tests on Linux-x64. 
>> Additionally, the java command was run to ensure that 
>> -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions is needed when specifying the 
>> BytecodeVerification* options.
>>
>> Thanks, Harold
>>