On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:31:02 GMT, Shiv Shah <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Old jdi debugee classes keep their own verbose flag and only print their >> trace when the debugger passes -vbs. logs you cannot see until a rerun are >> useless for failures that do not reproduce, so the gating goes and the >> messages always print. 65 files here, the flag and its -vbs parsing are >> deleted and the little print helper becomes an unconditional display on >> stderr. two debugger classes carried a flag that nothing ever set, that dead >> code is just removed. the remaining files with the same pattern overlap open >> reviews and follow separately. output volume is a handful of lines per >> debugee. >> >> PS: Checked log size against a full nsk/jdi in CI run and none of the >> changed tests hit the jtreg output limit. Largest .jtr was about 100 KB, and >> this change adds only around a dozen short protocol lines per debuggee. The >> tests that do trip the overflow marker are the monitor and stress event >> tests. which aren’t modified here and were already doing so before this >> change. >> >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Shiv Shah has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Address review comments, use Log and single line calls Thank you for update. The `TestDescription.java` launchers still pass the `-verbose` flag. What is the plan on this? Is it going to be a separate cleanup or it is missed? Also, I see the following code in `test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/Accessible/isPrivate/isPrivate001.java`: if (argsHandler.verbose()) { debugee = binder.bindToDebugee(debugeeName + " -vbs"); } else { debugee = binder.bindToDebugee(debugeeName); } The file: `test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/Accessible/isProtected/isProtected001.java` has the same pattern. Could you double check for the same pattern in other files? I guess, the parameter " -vbs" should not be passed in the updated tests. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32375#issuecomment-5404322192
