JDK-8132545 : Provide a better alternative to IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOption that takes provided list of flags
  • Type: Enhancement
  • Component: hotspot
  • Sub-Component: runtime
  • Affected Version: 9
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Won't Fix
  • Submitted: 2015-07-29
  • Updated: 2019-05-02
  • Resolved: 2019-01-08
Related Reports
Blocks :  
Relates :  
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
Runtime Triage: This is not on our current list of priorities. We will consider this feature if we receive additional customer requirements.