On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:38:41 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> cc @ctornqvi
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> removed file added by accident
I guess the proper course of actions would be not to mention any
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:38:41 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> cc @ctornqvi
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> removed file added by accident
Thanks for the clarification, David. I guess my recollection of jtreg code
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 23:11:36 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> That doesn’t seem right as jtreg expects `-` not ``
>
>> That doesn’t seem right as jtreg expects `-` not ``
>
> It has been tested, details in ticket comment.
I’m sorry @frkator but there is nothing in the ticket.
-
PR:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:38:41 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> cc @ctornqvi
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> removed file added by accident
That doesn’t seem right as jtreg expects `-` not ``
-
PR:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 19:48:47 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> cc @ctornqvi
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in
> by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains two additional
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 00:04:08 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> cc @ctornqvi
as it has been discussed internally, jtreg doesn’t recognize $os-$arch-$version
pattern in problem list (but understands $os-$version) so for the test to be
excluded only on windows 11, you should use `windows-11`
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 00:04:08 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> cc @ctornqvi
Marked as reviewed by iignatyev (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6025
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:51:45 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> As a follow up of JEP 411, we will soon disallow security manager by default.
> jtreg 6.1 does not set its own security manager if JDK version is >= 18.
LGTM
-
Marked as reviewed by iignatyev (Reviewer).
PR:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 06:59:09 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> During the review of JDK-8272914 that added hotspot:tier{2,3} groups,
>> @iignatev suggested to create tier4 groups that capture all tests not in
>> tiers{1,2,3}.
>>
>> Caveats:
>> - I excluded `applications` from `hotspot:tier4`,
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 15:15:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> See the bug report for more details. I would appreciate if people with their
> corporate testing systems would run this through their systems to avoid
> surprises. (ping @RealCLanger, @iignatev).
Marked as reviewed by iignatyev
On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 13:22:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> During the review of JDK-8272914 that added hotspot:tier{2,3} groups,
>> @iignatev suggested to create tier4 groups that capture all tests not in
>> tiers{1,2,3}. I have excluded `vmTestbase` and `hotspot:tier4,` because they
>> take
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 18:40:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > <...> I have excluded `vmTestbase` and `hotspot:tier4`<...> I have also
> > > excluded `applications` from `hotspot:tier4` <...>
> >
> >
> > assuming the goal of tier4 is to catch the rest of the tests, I don't think
> > we
On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 09:10:20 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> During the review of JDK-8272914 that added hotspot:tier{2,3} groups,
> @iignatev suggested to create tier4 groups that capture all tests not in
> tiers{1,2,3}. I have excluded `vmTestbase` and `hotspot:tier4,` because they
> take 10+
On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 16:31:50 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the RFE for discussion.
>>
>> Current PR improves the test time like this:
>>
>>
>> $ make run-test TEST=java/lang/invoke/LFCaching/
>>
>> # Before
>> real 3m51.608s
>> user 5m21.612s
>> sys 0m5.391s
>>
>> # After
>> real
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 11:33:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> See the RFE for discussion.
>
> Current PR improves the test time like this:
>
>
> $ make run-test TEST=java/lang/invoke/LFCaching/
>
> # Before
> real 3m51.608s
> user 5m21.612s
> sys 0m5.391s
>
> # After
> real 1m13.606s
>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 15:15:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> See the bug report for more details. I would appreciate if people with their
> corporate testing systems would run this through their systems to avoid
> surprises. (ping @RealCLanger, @iignatev).
the testing in our infra returned
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 15:15:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> See the bug report for more details. I would appreciate if people with their
> corporate testing systems would run this through their systems to avoid
> surprises. (ping @RealCLanger, @iignatev).
Hi @shipilev ,
I've submitted
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:58:48 GMT, Mikhailo Seledtsov
wrote:
>> Please review this change that updates the buildJdkDockerImage() test
>> library API.
>>
>> This work originated while working on "8195809: [TESTBUG] jps and jcmd -l
>> support for containers is not tested".
>> The initial intent
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:31:41 GMT, Mikhailo Seledtsov
wrote:
> Please review this change that updates the buildJdkDockerImage() test library
> API.
>
> This work originated while working on "8195809: [TESTBUG] jps and jcmd -l
> support for containers is not tested".
> The initial intent was
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:47:04 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Please review this change that updates the buildJdkDockerImage() test
>> library API.
>>
>> This work originated while working on "8195809: [TESTBUG] jps and jcmd -l
>> support for containers is
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:13:49 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this big tedious and trivial(-ish) patch which moves
> `sun.hotspot.WhiteBox` and related classes to `jdk.test.whitebox` package?
>
> the majority of the patch is the following subs
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:56:39 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> I agree with these revised changes for JDK 17.
Thanks for your review, Vladimir.
I'll rerun my testing before integrating (just for good luck).
-- Igor
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/pull/290
On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 20:42:10 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> could you please review this big tedious and trivial(-ish) patch which moves
>> `sun.hotspot.WhiteBox` and related classes to `jdk.test.whitebox` package?
>>
>> the majority of the
g`
>
> testing: tier1-4
>
> Thanks,
> -- Igor
Igor Ignatyev has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- copyright update
- fixed typo in ClassFileInstaller
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/p
On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 20:42:10 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> could you please review this big tedious and trivial(-ish) patch which moves
>> `sun.hotspot.WhiteBox` and related classes to `jdk.test.whitebox` package?
>>
>> the majority of the
g`
>
> testing: tier1-4
>
> Thanks,
> -- Igor
Igor Ignatyev has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compared
to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains 12 new commits
sinc
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 01:30:37 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> could you please review this big tedious and trivial(-ish) patch which moves
>> `sun.hotspot.WhiteBox` and related classes to `jdk.test.whitebox` package?
>>
>> the majority of the patch is the following substitutions:
Hi all,
could you please review this big tedious and trivial(-ish) patch which moves
`sun.hotspot.WhiteBox` and related classes to `jdk.test.whitebox` package?
the majority of the patch is the following substitutions:
- `s~sun/hotspot/WhiteBox~jdk/test/whitebox/WhiteBox~g`
-
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:05:49 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> A trivial fix to remove java/util/concurrent/locks/Lock/TimedAcquireLeak.java
> from ProblemList.txt
Marked as reviewed by iignatyev (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/pull/164
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 06:26:53 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this small patch that does $subj?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Igor
>
> attn: @plummercj
closing in favor of openjdk/jdk17#2
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4451
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 06:26:53 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this small patch that does $subj?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Igor
>
> attn: @plummercj
This pull request has been closed without being integrated.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4451
Hi all,
could you please review this small patch that does $subj?
Thanks,
-- Igor
attn: @plummercj
-
Commit messages:
- 8267448
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4451/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=4451=00
Issue:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 19:00:39 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
>> EFH is improved to process cores and get mixed stack traces with jhsdb and
>> native stack traces with gdb/lldb. It might be useful because hs_err doesn't
>> contain info about all threads, sometimes it is even not generated.
>
> Leonid
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 01:00:53 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
>> EFH is improved to process cores and get mixed stack traces with jhsdb and
>> native stack traces with gdb/lldb. It might be useful because hs_err doesn't
>> contain info about all threads, sometimes it is even not generated.
>
> Leonid
On Thu, 27 May 2021 22:05:55 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
> EFH is improved to process cores and get mixed stack traces with jhsdb and
> native stack traces with gdb/lldb. It might be useful because hs_err doesn't
> contain info about all threads, sometimes it is even not generated.
@lmesnik ,
On Wed, 26 May 2021 17:52:31 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> The class `test/lib/jtreg/SkippedException.java` is missing a
>> serialVersionUID causing additional noise in compiler output of tests.
>
> Roger Riggs has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:30:23 GMT, Doug Simon wrote:
> I guess this should really be named `isJVMCICompilerEnabled` now and the
> `vm.graal.enabled` predicate renamed to `vm.jvmcicompiler.enabled` but maybe
> that's too big a change (or can be done later).
@dougxc, I don't think that we should
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 16:36:54 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> should we remove `sun.hotspot.code.Compiler::isGraalEnabled` method and
>> update a few of its users accordingly?
>> what about `vm.graal.enabled` `@requires` property?
>
> @iignatev If you think that I should clean tests anyway I
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:26:40 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> As part of [JEP 410](http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/410) remove code related
>> to Java-based JIT compiler (Graal) from JDK:
>>
>> - `jdk.internal.vm.compiler` — the Graal compiler
>> - `jdk.internal.vm.compiler.management` — Graal's
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:26:40 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> As part of [JEP 410](http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/410) remove code related
>> to Java-based JIT compiler (Graal) from JDK:
>>
>> - `jdk.internal.vm.compiler` — the Graal compiler
>> - `jdk.internal.vm.compiler.management` — Graal's
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:30:32 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> As part of [JEP 410](http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/410) remove code related
>> to Java-based JIT compiler (Graal) from JDK:
>>
>> - `jdk.internal.vm.compiler` — the Graal compiler
>> - `jdk.internal.vm.compiler.management` — Graal's
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:24:38 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> As part of [JEP 410](http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/410) remove code related
>> to Ahead-of-Time Compiler from JDK:
>>
>> - `jdk.aot` module — the `jaotc` tool
>> - `src/hotspot/share/aot` — loads AoT compiled code into VM for
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 20:26:42 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this trivial cleanup?
> from JBS:
>
>> jtreg `@modules X` directive does two things:
>> - exclude a test from execution if JDK under test doesn't have module X
>>
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:25:48 GMT, Iris Clark wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> could you please review this trivial cleanup?
>> from JBS:
>>
>>> jtreg `@modules X` directive does two things:
>>> - exclude a test from execution if JDK under test doesn't have module X
>>> - if JDK under test has
Hi all,
could you please review this trivial cleanup?
from JBS:
> jtreg `@modules X` directive does two things:
> - exclude a test from execution if JDK under test doesn't have module X
> - if JDK under test has module X, make sure it's resolved
>
> both these things have no sense for
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 14:20:20 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> Igor Ignatyev has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR.
>
>
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 04:31:31 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this dull patch that replaces `ClassFileInstaller` w/
> `jdk.test.lib.helpers.ClassFileInstaller` in all jtreg test descriptions to
> ensure we won't get split testlibrary, and remov
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 06:16:37 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote:
>> Igor Ignatyev has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains
nowhere to be found, hence we
>> get NCDFE.
>
> testing:
> - [x] `grep ' ClassFileInstaller[^.]`
> - [ ] tier1-3
>
> Thanks,
> -- Igor
Igor Ignatyev has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
commits have been removed. The incremental views will sh
nowhere to be found, hence we
>> get NCDFE.
>
> testing:
> - [x] `grep ' ClassFileInstaller[^.]`
> - [ ] tier1-3
>
> Thanks,
> -- Igor
Igor Ignatyev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
fix compilation error i
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 04:31:31 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this dull patch that replaces `ClassFileInstaller` w/
> `jdk.test.lib.helpers.ClassFileInstaller` in all jtreg test descriptions to
> ensure we won't get split testlibrary, and remov
Hi all,
could you please review this dull patch that replaces `ClassFileInstaller` w/
`jdk.test.lib.helpers.ClassFileInstaller` in all jtreg test descriptions to
ensure we won't get split testlibrary, and removes
`jdk/test/lib/ClassFileInstaller.java` (so it won't be accidentally used).
from
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 05:47:00 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review the patch which moves `ClassFileInstaller` class to
> `jdk.test.lib.helpers` package?
> to reduce changes in the tests, `ClassFileInstaller` in the default package
> is kept w/
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:08:09 GMT, Mikhailo Seledtsov
wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> could you please review the patch which moves `ClassFileInstaller` class to
>> `jdk.test.lib.helpers` package?
>> to reduce changes in the tests, `ClassFileInstaller` in the default package
>> is kept w/ just
Hi all,
could you please review the patch which moves `ClassFileInstaller` class to
`jdk.test.lib.helpers` package?
to reduce changes in the tests, `ClassFileInstaller` in the default package is
kept w/ just `main` method that calls `jdk.test.lib.helpers.
ClassFileInstaller::main`.
from
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 19:56:07 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> Refactor `test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/loaderLeak/LoaderLeak.sh` as java
>> test.
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> 8166026: Refactor java/lang shell
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 15:55:03 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> Refactor `test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/loaderLeak/LoaderLeak.sh` as java
>> test.
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> 8166026: Refactor java/lang shell
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:24:19 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> Refactor `test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/loaderLeak/LoaderLeak.sh` as java
>> test.
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> 8166026: Refactor java/lang shell
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:33:30 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8166026: Refactor java/lang shell tests to java
>
> test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/LoaderL
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:39:04 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8166026: Refactor java/lang shell tests to java
>
> test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/LoaderL
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 20:12:03 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> Refactor `test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/loaderLeak/LoaderLeak.sh` as java
>> test.
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
> or a rebase. The pull request now contains four commits:
>
> - 8166026:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:46:14 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> @iignatev could you please review? Thank you.
>>
>> note to self:
>> jtreg test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/InheritIO/InheritIoTest.java
>> test/jdk/java/lang/SecurityManager/modules/CustomSecurityManagerTest.java
>>
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:58:37 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/LoaderLeakTest.java line 54:
>>
>>> 52: List classes = List.of("A.class", "B.class", "C.class");
>>> 53: for (String fileName : classes) {
>>> 54: Files.move(
>>
>> I don't think
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 15:19:58 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> Refactor `test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/loaderLeak/LoaderLeak.sh` as java
>> test.
>
> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> 8166026: Refactor java/lang shell
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:54:13 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> Defined new test groups as defined in ticket. @fguallini
>
> Ivan Šipka has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences
> compared to the previous
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:10:13 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Ivan Šipka has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8257516: removing trailing space
>
> @frkator, you will need to open a new JBS ticket
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:50:19 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> @iignatev could you please review? Thank you.
>
> note to self:
> jtreg test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/InheritIO/InheritIoTest.java
> test/jdk/java/lang/SecurityManager/modules/CustomSecurityManagerTest.java
>
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:11:54 GMT, Mahendra Chhipa
wrote:
> …id as 1st word in @ignore
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8249836
LGTM
-
Marked as reviewed by iignatyev (Reviewer).
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1482
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:13:59 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
> Defined new test groups as defined in ticket. @fguallini
@frkator, you will need to open a new JBS ticket for this change.
test/jdk/TEST.groups line 326:
> 324: :jdk_text \
> 325: :core_tools \
> 326: :jdk_other
it would seem
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:31:50 GMT, Ivan Šipka wrote:
>> test/jdk/TEST.groups line 327:
>>
>>> 325: :core_tools \
>>> 326: :jdk_other \
>>> 327: :jdk_core_manual
>>
>> Please don't add manual tests to jdk_core.
>
> Removed.
aren't they already a part of `jdk_core` test group? e.g.
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 15:48:33 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> TestNG 7.1 changed/corrected the way that @BeforeGroups are selected at
> runtime.
> The test was depending on @BeforeGroups to initialize common security policy
> for a number of tests.
> The tests are modified to individually setup the
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 20:25:13 GMT, Nils Eliasson wrote:
>> This patch adds jcmd Thread.print to the jtreg timeout handler.
>>
>> Please review.
>
> Nils Eliasson has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> add extended printing to
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:09:58 GMT, Nils Eliasson wrote:
> This patch adds jcmd Thread.print to the jtreg timeout handler.
>
> Please review.
Hi Nils,
It looks alright, but could you please elaborate on why we need it when there
is already `jstack` action?
— Igor
-
PR:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:13:29 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
>> Please review this change to add an @requires mechanism called
>> "jdk.containerized" to help mark tests that are incompatible with
>> containers. Users would add "@requires jdk.containerized != true" to the
>> incompatible tests and
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:49:26 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Defining an environment variable works when running JTReg from the command
> line. But, mach5 does not pass environment variable settings to its JTReg
> test runs. Some mach5 special command args would still be needed.
right, yet given
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 19:54:40 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Hi Igor,
>> I think it depends on whether the tests will be permanently or temporarily
>> excluded from running with containers. I thought this mechanism would be to
>> permanently exclude the tests. Tha
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 19:25:27 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> I think it depends on whether the tests will be permanently or temporarily
> excluded from running with containers. I thought this mechanism would be to
> permanently exclude the tests. That's why I used `@requires`.
I see, if this is
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 18:44:54 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Please review this change to add an @requires mechanism called
> "jdk.containerized" to help mark tests that are incompatible with containers.
> Users would add "@requires jdk.containerized != true" to the incompatible
> tests and then
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:32:52 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
>> 8253667: ProblemList tools/jlink/JLinkReproducible{,3}Test.java on
>> linux-aarch64
>
> Daniel D. Daugherty has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit since the last revision:
>
> Update existing
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:16:52 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> 8253667: ProblemList tools/jlink/JLinkReproducible{,3}Test.java on
>> linux-aarch64
>
> test/jdk/ProblemList.txt line 859:
>
>> 857: tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java 8217166
&
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:05:48 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> 8253667: ProblemList tools/jlink/JLinkReproducible{,3}Test.java on
> linux-aarch64
Marked as reviewed by iignatyev (Reviewer).
test/jdk/ProblemList.txt line 859:
> 857: tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java
free = 95019069440 usable = 95019069440
> ...
> --
>
>
> The drives K: and O: are mapped network drives.
> Do you see something similar in your landscape? Can you perhaps try to
> reproduce this?
>
> Best regards,
> Arno
>
his test looks all right to me.
>
> Sorry for the late review.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Igor Ignatyev > <mailto:igor.ignat...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//6501010/webrev.00
ping?
-- Igor
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//6501010/webrev.00
>> 98 lines changed: 18 ins; 31 del; 49 mod;
>
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this small fix to make java/io/File/GetXSpace.ja
Hi David,
looks good to me.
-- Igor
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 4:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8249940
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8249940/webrev/
>
> A number of native tests in hotspot and jdk include the jni_util.h header
> file
t;
> This issue is not critical to target for 15. It may worth considering target
> this test fix for 16. Just a suggestion.
>
> Mandy
>
> On 7/20/20 10:13 AM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> Hi Mandy,
>>
>> that's actually the opposite, the 2nd subtest is ru
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//6501010/webrev.00
> 98 lines changed: 18 ins; 31 del; 49 mod;
Hi all,
could you please review this small fix to make java/io/File/GetXSpace.java work
again on windows?
the test has been updated to work under cygwin, which includes the following
changes:
:+TieredCompilation (c1 + c2);
- -XX:-TieredCompilation (c2-only);
- -XX:+NeverActAsServerClassMachine (emulated-client, c1-only)
the test was run 100 times on {linux,windows,macos}-x64 w/ 0 failures.
Thanks,
-- Igor
> On Jul 18, 2020, at 9:32 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/17/2
Hi Alan,
thanks for the review, pushed to jdk15.
-- Igor
> On Jul 19, 2020, at 8:18 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 19/07/2020 05:28, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> :
>> the patch also includes minimal changes to make the test runnable on macosx,
>> which reveled that t
Mandy, Vladimir,
thanks for your reviews, pushed to jdk15.
-- Igor
> On Jul 18, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Mandy
>
> On 7/17/20 8:57 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8249698/webrev.00
>> <http://cr.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8249700/webrev.01/
> 9 lines changed: 1 ins; 1 del; 7 mod
Hi all,
could you please review this small patch which removes @ignore from
java/io/File/GetXSpace.java and instead adds an entry to ProblemList.txt?
from JBS:
> java/io/File/GetXSpace.java is
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8249698/webrev.00
> 3 lines changed: 1 ins; 1 del; 1 mod;
Hi all,
could you please review this trivial patch which removes @ignore from
LFGarbageCollectedTest and adds it into problem-list instead?
from 8249698:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/8249697/webrev.00/
> 7 lines changed: 4 ins; 0 del; 3 mod;
Hi all,
could you please review this small and trivial patch for
java/lang/invoke/RicochetTest.java test?
from JBS:
> a run of java/lang/invoke/RicochetTest.java w/ MAX_ARITY=255 was removed from
LGTM
— Igor
> On Jul 13, 2020, at 5:35 PM, alexander.matv...@oracle.com wrote:
>
> Please review the jpackage fix for bug [1] at [2].
>
> Added missing ",".
>
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8249264
> [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~almatvee/8249264/webrev.00/
>
> Thanks,
>
LGTM, thanks for fixing, and sorry for introducing that.
— Igor
> On Jul 8, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty
> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> A trivial fix to make the validate-header Tier1 task happy.
>
> Here's the context diff:
>
> $ hg diff -r qparent
> diff -r c5202ed40b86
Hi Dan,
LGTM
Thanks,
-- Igor
> JDK-8248358 ProblemList
> serviceability/jvmti/ModuleAwareAgents/ThreadStart/MAAThreadStart.java on
> Windows
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248358
I guess you meant JDK-8248358 ProblemList
sun/nio/ch/TestMaxCachedBufferSize.java on macOSX
Magnus, Erik,
thanks for your reviews, pushed w/ a newline being added at L#654 of
make/Main.gmk.
Cheers,
-- Igor
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 7:03 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
> wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-16 15:06, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-06-15 17:39, Igor Ignatyev
ve/discuss the fate of the test.
Thanks,
-- Igor
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 12:14 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> On 16/06/2020 10:39 am, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>> @David, Erik, Magnus,
>> please find the answers to your comments at the bottom of this email.
>> @
@David, Erik, Magnus,
please find the answers to your comments at the bottom of this email.
@all,
David's and Erik's comments made me realize that some parts of the original
patch were stashed away and didn't make it to webrev.00. I'm truly sorry for
the confusion and inconvenience. I also
Hi Roger,
LGTM,
Thanks,
— Igor
> On Jun 15, 2020, at 7:10 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Roger
1 - 100 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
