RFR: 8144874: Reimplement TraceClassResolution with UL

[Max Ockner]

Here is a sample of the output:

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
Properties.java:971

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
Properties.java:971

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
Properties.java:971

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
Properties.java:971

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
Properties.java:971

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.util.Properties java.lang.String 
Properties.java:971

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] sun.misc.Version java.lang.StringBuilder 
Version.java:121

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.lang.StringLatin1 java.lang.String 
StringLatin1.java:508

[1.024s][info   ][classresolve] java.nio.CharBuffer 
java.nio.HeapCharBuffer CharBuffer.java:387



On 12/18/2015 12:19 AM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>
>
> On 12/17/15 12:00 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/classresolve
>>
>> On 12/16/2015 6:27 PM, Ioi Lam wrote:
>>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> [1] I think you need to rebase your changes and send out a new 
>>> webrev. The latest version of argument.cpp already has these
>>>
>>> static AliasedFlag const aliased_jvm_logging_flags[] = {
>>>   { "-XX:+TraceMonitorInflation", "-Xlog:monitorinflation=debug" },
>>>   { "-XX:-TraceMonitorInflation", "-Xlog:monitorinflation=off" },
>>>   { NULL, NULL }
>>> };
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>
>>> which would conflict with similar lines that you added.
>>>
>>> [2] In the test case ClassResolutionTest.java:
>>>
>>> Is there any need for adding "-Xmx64m"? If not, I think it should be 
>>> removed.
>>
>> Removed.
>>
>>>
>>> [3] Also, could you send out a sample log that covers all of the 
>>> different logging lines that you have touched?
>>
>> What would you like to see? The webrev contains all of the lines that 
>> were touched, and there is only one level of logging here 
>> (-Xlog:classresolve=info)
> I was looking for the output of something like
>
>     java -Xlog:classresolve=info <some_test_program>
>
> Feel free to edit the output to remove the redundant lines and just 
> show a good sample of what the output looks like. It's much easier to 
> spot problems by looking at the output, rather than looking at the 
> code and try to synthesize the output in my head.
>
> I would suggest doing the same for all other UL code reviews. It will 
> help the reviewers a lot.
>
> Thanks
> - Ioi
>
>>
>>>
>>> I think the "RESOLVE" in the following output is redundant and 
>>> should be removed.
>>>
>>> [classresolve] RESOLVE 
>>> ClassResolutionTest$ClassResolutionTestMain$Thing1Handler 
>>> ClassResolutionTest$ClassResolutionTestMain$Thing1
>>
>> I agree. This is now gone.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> - Ioi
>>>
>>> On 12/16/15 12:44 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> Please review my code for another Unified Logging conversion.
>>>>
>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8144874
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/classresolve/
>>>>
>>>> Summary: "-XX:+TraceClassResolution" reimplemented using Unified 
>>>> Logging with classresolve tag and Info level. Support is maintained 
>>>> for TraceClassResolution using the alias table.
>>>>
>>>> Tested with: Selection Resolution tests, jtreg tests. This change 
>>>> also adds a jtreg test for the implementation of classresolve, and 
>>>> for the maintained support of TraceClassResolution.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Max
>>>
>>
>