Carsten, This looks good with a few comments:
1) If you make the “verbose” variable into a static field, you can avoid the final-copying. 2) nit: Line 216: put "System.exit(1);” on it’s own line Oh, and create a bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net Thanks, /Staffan > On 29 okt. 2015, at 14:54, Daniel D. Daugherty <daniel.daughe...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > JVM/TI belongs to the Serviceability team so adding serviceability-dev@... > > Dan > > > > On 10/28/15 8:45 PM, Carsten Varming wrote: >> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cvarming/jvmtiGen/ >> bug: ? >> >> jvmtiGen is used to process a number of xml and xslt files in OpenJDK. >> Currently jvmtiGen exits with exit code 0 regardless of its success. This >> causes make to often consider a target finished when in fact the target >> failed. It also leads to funny error checking after the execution of >> jvmtiGen. For instance, in many trace.make files[*] a test for the >> existence of the output file is carried out after the completion of >> jvmtiGen. In a clean working repository that test is equivalent to jvmtiGen >> exiting with a proper exit failure code on failure, but in a dirty working >> repository the target file might just be pre-existing. This causes >> unnecessary pain when working with files processed by jvmtiGen. >> >> In this change I chose to exit with exit code 1 whenever a failure is >> detected, be it a dtd validation failure, an IO failure, or something else >> entirely. This halts the building of OpenJDK on failures and ultimately >> makes development easier. I also added a verbose option such that warnings >> from the xml parser and dtd checker can be printed on stderr if desired. >> Finally, I changed all the error message printing to stderr. :-) >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> BTW. This is the first time I tried the webrev system, so hopefully it all >> looks good. I havn't figured out how to create a bug yet, whence the >> question mark. >> >> I wasn't sure if hotspot-runtime-dev is the right email alias. Please let >> me know if there is a more appropriate alias for this email. >> >> [*] Why are so many of the non-shared makefiles almost identical? >
