RFR 8134995(M): [REDO] GC: implement ranges (optionally constraints) for those flags that have them missing

[Jesper Wilhelmsson]

Looks good!
/Jesper

Den 14/9/15 kl. 16:23, skrev gerard ziemski:
> Thank you. I have no more comments - reviewed.
>
>
> cheers
>
>
> On 09/12/2015 03:38 AM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>> Hi Gerard,
>>
>> On 09/11/2015 12:24 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>>> Hi Gerard,
>>>
>>> Thank you for looking at this.
>>>
>>> On 09/11/2015 11:13 AM, gerard ziemski wrote:
>>>> hi Sangheon,
>>>>
>>>> #1 test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation/TestOptionsWithRanges.java
>>>>
>>>> Please change the comment to:
>>>>
>>>> +        /*
>>>> +         * Exclude below options as their maximum value would consume too
>>>> much memory
>>>> +         * and would affect other tests that run in parallel.
>>>> +         */
>>> Okay, I will fix as you suggested.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> #2 What tests did you run? Did you run
>>>> test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation on all platforms (including
>>>> embedded)?
>>> No.
>>> I ran tests under test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation (especially
>>> TestOptionsWithRanges.java) for all platforms
>>> except embedded.
>>> Let me back after testing on embedded.
>> I ran for embedded (linux-arm64, linux-armvh, linux-armvfpsflt,
>> linux-armvfphflt, linux-armsflt) and all of them PASSED
>> for test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sangheon
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sangheon
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/10/2015 07:01 PM, sangheon.kim wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review this patch for command-line validation for GC flags.
>>>>> This REDO patch is adding ranges and implementing constraint functions for
>>>>> GC flags.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original CR of JDK-8078555 was backout as it made a test failure from
>>>>> 'TestOptionsWithRanges.java'.
>>>>> And also there were some discussion of OOM handling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most parts are same as JDK-8078555 except below:
>>>>> 1. Changed 'range' for some flags.
>>>>> 2. Excluded 3 flags for TestOptionsWithRanges.java test. These flags make
>>>>> this test unstable as it tries to allocate
>>>>> huge amount of memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> And below are the suggestion note for JDK-8078555:
>>>>> 1. Exponential notation for 'double' type variable parse: Previously there
>>>>> were some discussion for maximum value for
>>>>> double type flags from code review of JDK-8059557 and JDK-8112746. And Kim
>>>>> and I decided not to add upper limit unless
>>>>> there are problems with DBL_MAX. And as 255 is the maximum length that can
>>>>> be passed via command-line, we introduced
>>>>> exponential notation to avoid this limit. ( arguments.cpp )
>>>>> 2. These GC flags ranges are not ideal ranges but ranges which don't make
>>>>> problem with current source code.
>>>>>      If one flag makes some problem but hard to find good range, I added
>>>>> some ranges.
>>>>> 3. There are some constraint functions to avoid overflow.
>>>>> 4. Test applications are changed: as some of them assumed to be ParallelGC
>>>>> or to check it's output messages.
>>>>> 5. Includes cleanup of JDK-8133565: GC -2nd followup to JDK-8059557.
>>>>>
>>>>> CR:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134995
>>>>>
>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.00/
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8134995/webrev.00_to_8078555
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing:
>>>>> JPRT, UTE(vm.quick-pcl) and
>>>>> test/runtime/CommandLine/OptionsValidation/TestOptionsWithRanges.java.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Sangheon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>