Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-8132545

Provide a better alternative to IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOption that takes provided list of flags


    • Type: Enhancement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: P4
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Affects Version/s: 9
    • Fix Version/s: tbd
    • Component/s: hotspot
    • Labels:


      Provide a better alternative to IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOption that takes provided list of flags


      I agree with this suggestion. Make it ccstrlist so we can specify list
      of flags. But then the name should be different - "Unrecognized" is
      misleading in such case I think.


      On 6/26/15 1:59 AM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
      > On 2015-06-26 08:00, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
      >> Hi all,
      >> Just one more thought if we are thinking about making changes to the
      >> IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions flag.
      >> I am not a big fan of this flag since I think it just goes to show
      >> that we don't have enough control over our testing. As I understand it
      >> the main reason for the introduction of this flag was that when
      >> compressed oops was implemented we had no way of controlling which
      >> tests were run on 32 bit platforms (where the UseCompressedOops flag
      >> is not available) or o 64 bit platforms.
      >> I think it is unfortunate that we don't have better control of our
      >> testing. But one way of at least increasing the control would be to
      >> make IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions more specific. I would suggest that
      >> we change it to take a named argument that should be ignored.
      >> Something like:
      >> -XX:IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOption=UseCompressedOops
      >> That way it would not hide other issues in our testing. As it is now
      >> we run a lot of our testing with IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions which
      >> means that we don't find tests that need to be updated when we for
      >> example remove a command line option.
      >> Maybe it is a side track, but I wanted to mention it in this discussion.
      > Yes, I've also suggested this a couple of times. Maybe it's time to
      > create an RFE?
      > StefanK
      >> Bengt


          Issue Links



              • Assignee:
                gziemski Gerard Ziemski
                gziemski Gerard Ziemski
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                3 Start watching this issue


                • Created: