On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 07:36:15 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> So how should we proceed this? This problem is critical for some modularized 
>> applications as I said before.
>> 
>> I agree that we need to consider the approach for this, but it is worth to 
>> provide the fix even if it is short-term, I think. I believe we can ensure 
>> not to break current behavior with jtreg tests.
>
> Hello @YaSuenag, like Alan noted, I believe the options parsing for jlink 
> will need a bigger change. The current proposed change has the potential to 
> have unexpected side effects where an option that wasn't expected to be 
> passed to a plugin for parsing, might now end up being passed to the plugin. 
> The fact that the current tests aren't catching that issue is also a sign 
> that we might need additional test coverage in this area.
> 
>> This problem is critical for some modularized applications as I said before.
> 
> Do you have an example `jlink` command line where you are running into 
> problems with the `--add-options`? As far as I know, there are workarounds to 
> get `--add-options` to behave correctly and be able to pass along the 
> expected values in the generated image. Depending on your example, we might 
> be able to suggest a workaround until the options parsing is reworked.

@jaikiran 
This is the case what I want to do.
https://github.com/YaSuenag/perfreader/blob/4844ac54b375d73b4ee981a90cd3b3b3e0245ab6/pom.xml#L71-L76

<argument>--add-options</argument>

<argument>-XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError 
--add-exports=jdk.internal.jvmstat/sun.jvmstat.monitor=perfreader 
--add-exports=jdk.internal.jvmstat/sun.jvmstat.perfdata.monitor=perfreader</argument>


We cannot pass `--add-exports` straightly as you know, but we can avoid the 
issue to add the option which starts with `-` to the top of args (it is similar 
with the workaround which is shown in JDK-8303884). So I've added 
`-XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError`, but it is ugly a bit I think.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19987#issuecomment-2255858298

Reply via email to