RFR: 8374232: Comment cleanup in diagnosticCommand.cpp [v2]

[Kevin Walls]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 18:00:06 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplummer at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> OK thanks.
>> I was thinking as all the usages here only use one argument, the numbering seems irrelevant.
>> The flags/mask of sources is maybe unusual enough that it's worth keeping the comment.
>> 
>> I almost didn't even mention the hidden flag, you go and find the constructor DCmdFactoryImpl(uint32_t flags, bool hidden = false) when clarification is needed.
>> Any thoughts on if it's worth mentioning?
>
> Yeah, before adding my comment I had to first go digging for that `bool hidden = false` reference. At first it was unclear to me what the comment was even trying to describe. I think if you wanted to delete the comment that would be ok. I don't think we have a comment like this is any of the other numerous sections that register dcmds.

Yes, so removing the obscure hidden flag from the comment, it can just be:

void DCmd::register_dcmds() {  
  // Registration of the diagnostic commands.
  // Argument specifies on which interfaces a command is made available.

But as it is called register_dcmds, commenting that we do "Registration of the diagnostic commands." on the next line is obvious/unnecessary.

Updated!

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28962#discussion_r2644095159