On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 18:12:20 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <[email protected]> wrote:

>> This change makes UseCompactObjectHeaders default and switches the sense of 
>> the CDS archive naming.  Now classes.jsa is with UseCompressedOops + 
>> UseCompactObjectHeaders (both default).  Then theres:
>> classes_nocoops.jsa
>> classes_nocoh.jsa
>> classes_nocoops_nocoh.jsa
>> 
>> Hopefully someday we won't need the nocoh versions.
>> 
>> Tested with tier1-8.  With only one issue also fixed in this change, and no 
>> other new issues found.
>> 
>> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the 
>> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
>
> Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request with a new target base due to 
> a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains four commits:
> 
>  - Reworked OMT/COH warning to always warn with -OMT and +COH.  Fixed build 
> --enable-cds-archive-coh to nocoh.
>  - Update test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/CommandLine/VMOptionWarning.java
>    
>    Co-authored-by: Fredrik Bredberg <[email protected]>
>  - Add warning about incompatible COH with OMT.
>  - Make UseCompactObjectHeaders the default and adjust CDS archives.

src/hotspot/share/runtime/arguments.cpp line 3784:

> 3782: #ifdef _LP64
> 3783:   if (UseCompactObjectHeaders && !UseObjectMonitorTable) {
> 3784:     // Warn if -UseCompactObjectHeaders is not on the command line, in 
> order to turn off UseObjectMonitorTable.

The comment is a bit confusing, and arguably redundant, since it just states 
what the code below, including printout, make already clear. I'd just remove 
the comment.

test/jdk/tools/jlink/plugins/CDSPluginTest.java line 84:

> 82:                                   
> wb.isDefaultVMFlag("UseCompactObjectHeaders");
> 83: 
> 84:         String suffix = COMPACT_HEADERS ? "_coh.jsa" : ".jsa";

Here, we don't test the nocoh archive?

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30322#discussion_r3109188081
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30322#discussion_r3109210172

Reply via email to