RFR 8010280: jvm.cfg needs updating for non-server builds (original) (raw)

Mike Duigou mike.duigou at oracle.com
Tue Apr 16 17:25:44 UTC 2013

On Apr 15 2013, at 15:42 , David Holmes wrote:

On 16/04/2013 2:25 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:

What's the difference between removing an entry completely and retaining it with "ERROR"? Just the nature of the error message: > java -green Error: green VM not supported > java -blue Unrecognized option: -blue Error: Could not create the Java Virtual Machine. Error: A fatal exception has occurred. Program will exit. I wasn't touching any of the legacy stuff - though if this needs to go to CCC I would suggest removing all the legacy entries.

OK.

Additionally I don't like that aliases have differing definitions and some confusing ones like "-server ALIASEDTO -client". Is this necessary or just historically convenient? I don't like aliases period! Historically (and this is very recent history) it was necessary to deal with the test suites being applied to a JDK with, eg, only client VM. Every test that specified -server would fail if the alias didn't exist (and as I stated we're moving away from that ie the tests don't set -client or -server but the complete test suite run does, and it knows what VM is under test. Personally I'd probably choose WARN for any VM not present. The problem is that the "right" thing depends on who is building what, and how they plan to use it. All I can do is define a not-unreasonable default policy. I also have a time constraint as I need to get this in before the 23rd to meet an internal deadline.

Understood.

Mike

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list