> On Aug 16, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Henry Jen <henry....@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> args.c
>> You have #define NOT_FOUND -1 but NOT_FOUND is not used else where.
>> 
> 
> Used right under to initialize firstAppArgIndex, and should be used in 
> following statement you shown.

Please change that.

> 
>> void JLI_InitArgProcessing(jboolean isJava, jboolean disableArgFile) {
>>     // for tools, this value remains 0 all the time.
>>     firstAppArgIndex = isJava ? -1 : 0;
>> 
>> If I understand correctly, firstAppArgIndex set to 0 means that @argfile is 
>> disabled.  On the other hand, ENABLE_ARG_FILES is also the flag to enable 
>> JDK tools to enable @argfile (disabled by default).  It seems to me that you 
>> no longer needs isJava parameter here.
> 
> firstAppArgIndex is the first index of user’s application argument, has 
> nothing to do with disable @argfile. This value remains 0 for launcher-based 
> tools, and returned by JLI_GetAppArgIndex().
> 
> A tools can have ENABLE_ARG_FILES to enable argument expansion, but we still 
> need to know it’s a launcher-based tool.


OK.   firstAppArgIndex is not used in the parsing.


> 
>> Might be killSwitchOn can be replaced with firstAppArgIndex == 0 case (not 
>> sure - will let you think about that.)   killSwitchOn is unclear what it 
>> means;  maybe renaming it to disableArgFile?
>> 
> 
> As explained earlier, firstAppArgIndex is different. We can rename 
> killSwitchOn, it was clear as we discussed kill switch, the -X:disable-@files 
> option. disableArgFile is used as the function argument, thus I left them as 
> is.
> 

It’s better to rename killSwitchOn to match what it means.

>> You may have to try building one tool with ENABLE_ARG_FILES to verify the 
>> change.
> 
> java is built with the flag. Others are not. I tested with javac before the 
> flag is reversed, so we know the flag is working.

That’s good.  I re-read that piece of code and that looks fine.


> 
>> It might be useful to add a few negative tests to sanity check especially on 
>> the quotation.
>> 
> 
> Make sense. Do you mean test cases that will fail launch of java?

Yes.

Mandy

Reply via email to