On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:58:50 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <cole...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Ioi Lam has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> relax flag attributions (ala JDK-7123237) > > src/hotspot/share/runtime/flags/debug_globals.hpp line 38: > >> 36: // have any MANAGEABLE flags of the ccstr type, but we really need to >> 37: // make sure the implementation is correct (in terms of memory >> allocation) >> 38: // just in case someone may add such a flag in the future. > > Could you have just added a develop flag to the manageable flags instead? I had to use a `product` flag due to the following code, which should have been removed as part of [JDK-8243208](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8243208), but I was afraid to do so because I didn't have a test case. I.e., all of our diagnostic/manageable/experimental flags were `product` flags. With this PR, now I have a test case -- I changed `DummyManageableStringFlag` to a `notproduct` flag, and removed the following code. I am re-running tiers1-4 now. void JVMFlag::check_all_flag_declarations() { for (JVMFlag* current = &flagTable[0]; current->_name != NULL; current++) { int flags = static_cast<int>(current->_flags); // Backwards compatibility. This will be relaxed/removed in JDK-7123237. int mask = JVMFlag::KIND_DIAGNOSTIC | JVMFlag::KIND_MANAGEABLE | JVMFlag::KIND_EXPERIMENTAL; if ((flags & mask) != 0) { assert((flags & mask) == JVMFlag::KIND_DIAGNOSTIC || (flags & mask) == JVMFlag::KIND_MANAGEABLE || (flags & mask) == JVMFlag::KIND_EXPERIMENTAL, "%s can be declared with at most one of " "DIAGNOSTIC, MANAGEABLE or EXPERIMENTAL", current->_name); assert((flags & KIND_NOT_PRODUCT) == 0 && (flags & KIND_DEVELOP) == 0, "%s has an optional DIAGNOSTIC, MANAGEABLE or EXPERIMENTAL " "attribute; it must be declared as a product flag", current->_name); } } } ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3254
