On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:18:51 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The non-constant test was added because that very bailout caused a crash. >> The other test is actually less interesting since it'll likely be covered >> indirectly by regular use. But as we are hiding these away this gets ever >> more obscure and perhaps the test could be dropped entirely. > > @cl4es, do you want me to delete that test file altogether? I thought you verified that the non-constant type test still provoke a crash (on x86) if you back out the code changes in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/969f6a37e4649079c7acea1952f5537fd9ba2f0a ? If so that test is still somewhat useful to guard against future coding mistakes by verifying that the bail out doesn't mess things up. The constant type tests have less utility, perhaps. I'd keep it as is unless there's a strong desire to reduce test runtime (these should be pretty quick). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19414#discussion_r1620259115
