On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:51:22 GMT, Andrey Turbanov <aturba...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Many OpenJDK micros use `@Fork(jvmArgs/-Append/-Prepend)` to add JVM
>> reasonable or necessary flags, but when deploying and running micros we
>> often want to add or replace flags to tune to the machine, test different
>> GCs, etc. The inconsistent use of the different `jvmArgs` options make it
>> error prone, and we've had a few recent cases where we've not been testing
>> with the expected set of flags.
>>
>> This PR suggests using `jvmArgs` consistently. I think this aligns with the
>> intuition that when you use `jvmArgsAppend/-Prepend` intent is to add to a
>> set of existing flags, while if you supply `jvmArgs` intent is "run with
>> these and nothing else". Perhaps there are other opinions/preferences, and I
>> don't feel strongly about which to consolidate to as long as we do so
>> consistently. One argument could be made to consolidate on `jvmArgsAppend`
>> since that one is (likely accidentally) the current most popular (143
>> compared to 59 `jvmArgsPrepend` and 18 `jvmArgs`).
>
> test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/vm/compiler/overhead/SimpleRepeatCompilation.java
> line 138:
>
>> 136:
>> 137: @Benchmark
>> 138: @Fork(jvmArgs={"-Xbatch",LARGE_METHOD})
>
> Suggestion:
>
> @Fork(jvmArgs={"-Xbatch", LARGE_METHOD})
I don't think this PR is the place to address pre-existing and
non-consequential style issues.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21683#discussion_r1819860308
