RFR(XS): 8169734: Update uses of string "java.base" to macro

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

Hi Rachel,

It looks good in general.
However, there are more instances of java.base that may need an update.

classfile/classLoader.cpp:

  775              "Incorrect boot loader search path, no java runtime image or java.base exploded build");

1826       vm_exit_during_initialization("Unable to create ModuleEntry for java.base");


classfile/modules.cpp:

  180                 "Bad package name for module: java.base");

  185                 err_msg("Invalid package name: %s for module: java.base", package_name));

  191                 err_msg("Duplicate package name: %s for module java.base",

  209   assert(ModuleEntryTable::javabase_moduleEntry() != NULL, "No ModuleEntry for java.base");

  230           assert(pkg != NULL, "Unable to create a java.base package entry");

  244               "Module java.base is already defined");

  253   log_debug(modules)("define_javabase_module(): Definition of module: java.base,"

  261     log_trace(modules)("define_javabase_module(): creation of package %s for module java.base",

  716   assert(ModuleEntryTable::javabase_defined(), "Attempt to call get_module before java.base is defined");

  762          "Attempt to call get_module_from_pkg before java.base is defined");

  799          "Attempt to call get_named_module before java.base is defined");


runtime/arguments.cpp:

3432       vm_exit_during_initialization("Cannot specify java.base more than once to --patch-module");


Some other files have it too:

classfile/vmSymbols.hpp: template(java_base, 
"java.base")                                \
classfile/moduleEntry.cpp:    fatal("Unable to finalize module 
definition for java.base");
classfile/moduleEntry.cpp:  assert(jb_module != NULL, "java.base 
ModuleEntry not defined");
classfile/moduleEntry.cpp:    fatal("Unable to patch the module field of 
classes loaded prior to java.base's definition, invalid 
java.lang.reflect.Module");
classfile/packageEntry.cpp: vm_exit_during_initialization("A 
non-java.base package was loaded prior to module system initialization", 
entry->name()->as_C_string());
oops/arrayKlass.cpp:         "module entry not available post java.base 
definition");
oops/instanceKlass.cpp: assert(ModuleEntryTable::javabase_moduleEntry() 
!= NULL, "java.base module is NULL");
runtime/os.cpp:  char* base_classes = 
format_boot_path("%/modules/java.base", home, home_len, fileSep, pathSep);

So, the question is if it's worth to update the remaining instances as well.
Simple concatenation or %s replacement in some rare cases could be used 
for it.


Thanks,
Serguei


On 12/1/16 13:20, Rachel Protacio wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Please review this little change, replacing errant uses of the string 
> "java.base" with the macro JAVA_BASE_NAME. Passes JPRT.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169734
> Open webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rprotacio/8169734.00/
>
> Thanks,
> Rachel