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.

Thanks,
Vladimir

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