On 17/06/2020 2:45 am, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
Hi David,
thanks for your review. re: LingeredAppTest, I agree that the test doesn't look very
useful, yet I'd remind that the goal of this (and other test in /test/lib-test) is to
(sanity) test testlibrary in order to easily spot bugs in
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 wrote:
>>> @David, Erik,
Hi David,
thanks for your review. re: LingeredAppTest, I agree that the test doesn't look
very useful, yet I'd remind that the goal of this (and other test in
/test/lib-test) is to (sanity) test testlibrary in order to easily spot bugs in
testlibrary in a clear manner so one would not have to
On 2020-06-16 15:06, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2020-06-15 17:39, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
@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
On 2020-06-15 17:39, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
@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
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.
@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
@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
On 2020-06-15 08:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
A few comments:
This seems like code copied from elsewhere:
57 # This evaluation is expensive and should only be done if this
target was
58 # explicitly called.
59 ifneq ($(filter build-test-libtest-jtreg-native, $(MAKECMDGOALS)), )
I
A few comments:
This seems like code copied from elsewhere:
57 # This evaluation is expensive and should only be done if this target was
58 # explicitly called.
59 ifneq ($(filter build-test-libtest-jtreg-native, $(MAKECMDGOALS)), )
I don't agree that this is an expensive evaluation.
Hello Igor,
In JtretNativeLibTest.gmk, lines 51-55 should probably be removed (or
adjusted if linking to libjvm is actually needed).
/Erik
On 2020-06-12 21:10, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
testing revealed that LingeredAppTest.java required some love, incremental
webrev w/ the fixes for
Hi Igor,
I found this all a bit hard to follow. It would have been clearer if
broken up into distinct pieces.
On 13/06/2020 2:10 pm, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
testing revealed that LingeredAppTest.java required some love, incremental
webrev w/ the fixes for LingeredAppTest --
testing revealed that LingeredAppTest.java required some love, incremental
webrev w/ the fixes for LingeredAppTest --
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8211977/webrev.0-1
-- Igor
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 8:38 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>
> adding build-dev
>
>> On Jun 12, 2020, at 8:36 PM,
adding build-dev
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 8:36 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8211977/webrev.00/
>> 796 lines changed: 200 ins; 588 del; 8 mod;
>
> Hi all,
>
> could you please review this small patch which puts all tests for testlibrary
> classes into one
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8211977/webrev.00/
> 796 lines changed: 200 ins; 588 del; 8 mod;
Hi all,
could you please review this small patch which puts all tests for testlibrary
classes into one location under /test/lib-test?
besides moving tests from test/jdk/lib/testlibrary and
14 matches
Mail list logo
