> On 9 Feb 2018, at 05:22, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Robin,
>> Right, almost all the runtime changes are made in order to try to figure out
>> what the process exit code from the launcher will eventually be. For
>> example, the launcher returns 1 if the main thread exited with an unhandled
>> exception, but 0 otherwise. But I actually agree that this information is
>> probably only of marginal use (it could always be captured from wherever
>> Java is launched if someone really wants it), so it is perhaps not worth the
> Yes and that particular example of launcher behaviour is an archaic throwback
> to C programming - where end of "main" means end of the program - IMHO. I
> don't think it is of interest - and certainly not worth jumping through so
> many hoops to make the info available.
>> Discussed it a bit with Erik Gahlin, and perhaps the best option here is to
>> simply remove the status code field from the event, that would simplify
>> things and make the code you mention above go away.
> That sounds good to me. :)
>>> It is unfortunate that you need to add beforeHalt to deal with the event
>>> mechanism itself being turned off (?) by a shutdown hook. That would seem
>>> to potentially lose a lot of event information given hooks can run in
>>> arbitrary order and execute arbitrary Java code. And essentially you end up
>>> recording the initial reason shutdown started, though potentially it could
>>> end up terminating for a different reason.
>> In this case I think it actually conveys useful information if you are
>> trying to diagnose an unexpected shutdown. It should be useful to find the
>> initial request of an orderly shutdown, even if something else happens
>> during the shutdown sequence like a finalizer calling exit (in which case
>> you could possibly end up with two shutdown events, but both may contain
>> interesting information).
> Yes that is useful. But I find the need to code things the way they are,
> unfortunate. But given current constraints, so be it.
Okay, I’ve removed the code related to the status field, certainly makes the
change a bit less intrusive.
Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8041626/webrev.01/
>> Best regards,
>>> Let's see what others think ...
>>> On 8/02/2018 1:18 AM, Robin Westberg wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Please review the following change that adds an event-based tracing event
>>>> that is generated when the VM shuts down. The intent is to capture
>>>> shutdowns that occur after the VM has been properly initialized (as
>>>> initialization problems would most likely mean that the tracing framework
>>>> hasn’t been properly started either).
>>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041626
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8041626/webrev.00/
>>>> Testing: hs-tier1,hs-tier2,jdk-tier1,jdk-tier2
>>>> Best regards,