RFR (M) 8210689: Remove the multi-line old C style for string literals
Alex Menkov
alexey.menkov at oracle.com
Sat Sep 22 00:22:09 UTC 2018
LGTM.
--alex
On 09/21/2018 17:06, JC Beyler wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Good catch, it was not done on purpose but now fixed:
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210689/webrev.03/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.03/>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210689
>
> Let me know if this works for you and thanks for the review,
> Jc
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:44 PM Alex Menkov <alexey.menkov at oracle.com
> <mailto:alexey.menkov at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jc,
>
> overall looks good (no changes in the logging)
> except
> test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/scenarios/hotswap/HS201/hs201t003/hs201t003.cpp
>
> :
> - if ((strcmp(name, expMeth) == 0) &&
> - (strcmp(sig, expSig) == 0)) {
> - NSK_DISPLAY4("===== %s event received for the tested method:\n\
> -\tID=0x%p name=\"%s\" signature=\"%s\"\n",
> + if ((strcmp(name, expMeth) == 0) && (strcmp(sig, expSig) == 0)) {
> + NSK_DISPLAY4(
> + "%s event received for the tested method:\n"
> + "\tID=0x%p name=\"%s\" signature=\"%s\"\n",
>
> "===== " is dropped from the beginning of the line
> I don't know if this is important.
>
> --alex
>
>
> On 09/21/2018 14:29, JC Beyler wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Done here:
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210689/webrev.02/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.02/>
> > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.02/>
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210689
> >
> > Anything else? and anybody else motivated to look?
> >
> > Thanks again!
> > Jc
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM Chris Plummer
> <chris.plummer at oracle.com <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com>
> > <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com
> <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi JC,
> >
> > Overall looks good. Just a couple minor edits needed:
> >
> > In nativemethbind003.cpp:
> >
> > 158 NSK_DISPLAY1("Inside the registerNative()\nFinding
> class
> > \"%s\" ...\n", CLASS_SIG);
> >
> > This was two lines and you made it one with a \n in the middle of
> > the string.
> >
> > In ap12t001.cpp:
> >
> > 69 NSK_COMPLAIN2(
> > 70 "Received unexpected number of ObjectFree
> events:
> > %d\n"
> > 71 "\texpected number: %d",
> > 72 obj_free, EXP_OBJ_FREE);
> >
> > There's no \n at the end of this output (and there never was).
> > Normally NSK_COMPLAIN is always used with a terminating \n.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/21/18 1:05 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> Sounds good to me; here it is:
> >> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210689/webrev.01/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.01/>
> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.01/>
> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210689
> >>
> >> I admit I strived to stay consistent and always started a
> new line
> >> for the multi-line argument even if the string was not too long;
> >> it's a question of style I believe but it felt more readable to
> >> me. I'll happily change whatever anyone prefers.
> >>
> >> This has passed the vmTestbase tests I changed but due to the
> >> shared changes, I've launched a full vmTestbase testing now.
> >>
> >> Let me know what you think,
> >> Jc
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:59 AM Chris Plummer
> >> <chris.plummer at oracle.com <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com>
> <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com>>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/21/18 10:55 AM, JC Beyler wrote:
> >>> Hi Chris,
> >>>
> >>> I hesitated to be honest and then thought that
> debug_str was
> >>> better as you would clearly see that it is a multi-lilne
> >>> string and what parameters are what. But I'll take your
> >>> preference (it's relatively the same for me). Quick
> question
> >>> though:
> >>>
> >>> Do you have a preference between:
> >>> NSK_COMPLAIN6(
> >>> "TEST FAILED: %s field \"%s\" has\n"
> >>> "\tsignature: \"%s\"\n"
> >>> "\tgeneric signature: \"%s\"\n\n"
> >>> "\tExpected: \"%s\"\n"
> >>> "\t\t\"%s\"\n\n",
> >>> (instance==0)?"instance":"static",
> >>> fld_sig[idx][0],
> >>> sign, (gen_sign==NULL)?"NULL":gen_sign,
> >>> fld_sig[idx][2], fld_sig[idx][3]);
> >>> or:
> >>> NSK_COMPLAIN6(
> >>> "TEST FAILED: %s field \"%s\"
> has\n\tsignature: \"%s\"\n"
> >>> "\tgeneric signature:
> \"%s\"\n\n\tExpected: \"%s\"\n\t\t\"%s\"\n\n",
> >>> (instance==0)?"instance":"static",
> >>> fld_sig[idx][0],
> >>> sign, (gen_sign==NULL)?"NULL":gen_sign,
> >>> fld_sig[idx][2], fld_sig[idx][3]);
> >>> I think I like the first because you can clearly see
> what we want to be printed out; but for code vertical
> >>> compression, the second is better. What do you think?
> >> I also prefer the first one.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> Jc
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 10:16 AM Chris Plummer
> >>> <chris.plummer at oracle.com
> <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com> <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com
> <mailto:chris.plummer at oracle.com>>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi JC,
> >>>
> >>> I didn't realize you intended to move all the strings
> >>> into a "const char*" first. Seems unnecessary, and I
> >>> think not as easy to read:
> >>>
> >>> 138 const char* debug_str =
> >>> 139 "TEST FAILED: JVMTI_EVENT_CLASS_LOAD
> >>> event received for\n"
> >>> 140 "\t a primitive class/array of
> primitive
> >>> types with the signature \"%s\"\n";
> >>> 141 NSK_COMPLAIN1(debug_str, sig);
> >>>
> >>> vs
> >>>
> >>> 138 NSK_COMPLAIN1("TEST FAILED:
> >>> JVMTI_EVENT_CLASS_LOAD event received for\n"
> >>> 139 "\t a primitive
> class/array of
> >>> primitive types with the signature \"%s\"\n",
> >>> 140 sig);
> >>>
> >>> or
> >>>
> >>> 138 NSK_COMPLAIN1(
> >>> 139 "TEST FAILED: JVMTI_EVENT_CLASS_LOAD
> >>> event received for\n"
> >>> 140 "\t a primitive class/array of
> primitive
> >>> types with the signature \"%s\"\n",
> >>> 141 sig);
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> On 9/21/18 8:00 AM, JC Beyler wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is anyone motivated on a Friday to review this ? :)
> >>>>
> >>>> It should be fairly straightforward :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jc
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:07 PM JC Beyler
> >>>> <jcbeyler at google.com <mailto:jcbeyler at google.com>
> <mailto:jcbeyler at google.com <mailto:jcbeyler at google.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Could I have a review for this webrev:
> >>>>
> >>>> Webrev:
> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8210689/webrev.00/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.00/>
> >>>>
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8210689/webrev.00/>
> >>>> Bug:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210689
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me know what you think,
> >>>> Jc
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jc
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jc
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
> Jc
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list