Thanks for that Leonid. As long as they are still included somewhere
that is fine.
David
On 27/03/2018 9:32 AM, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
Hi
There is no strict rules and time budgets for hotspot tiers. It is assumed that
faster tests should be executed earlier tiers. The order and total impact
Hi Leonid,
The exclusion of these 3 tests from tier1 looks ok to me. It did lead me
to some other questions however. The first was that if you exclude them
from tier1, how to they get included in a later tier. The answer, for
the SA tests, is that all of serviceability is included in tier2.
Looks good.
thanks,
Chris
On 3/26/18 4:36 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi Serguei,
updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/retransformClassesZeroLength/webrev.02/
- updated copyright in th eInstrumentationImpl.java
- removed inused imports in the test
On 03/26/2018 14:31,
Hi Alex,
On 3/26/18 16:36, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi Serguei,
updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/retransformClassesZeroLength/webrev.02/
- updated copyright in th eInstrumentationImpl.java
- removed inused imports in the test
Thank you for the update!
On 03/26/2018
Hi Serguei,
updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/retransformClassesZeroLength/webrev.02/
- updated copyright in th eInstrumentationImpl.java
- removed inused imports in the test
On 03/26/2018 14:31, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
It looks good to me.
A couple of
Hi
There is no strict rules and time budgets for hotspot tiers. It is assumed that
faster tests should be executed earlier tiers. The order and total impact of of
these test depends on how they are executed.
Here is time of execution of tier1 groups with and without these excluded tests:
The
Forgot to tell that the copyright comment in the
InstrumentationImpl.java needs an update.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 3/26/18 14:31, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
It looks good to me.
A couple of questions:
- How does the test fail with the unfixed code?
- It seems, the following
Hi Alex,
It looks good to me.
A couple of questions:
- How does the test fail with the unfixed code?
- It seems, the following imports in the test are not needed:
34 import java.io.IOException;
. . .
43 import java.util.Arrays;
. . .
45 import jdk.test.lib.Utils;
46 import
On 3/26/18 6:21 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi Ioi,
I think a proper fix should clarify which VERSION we are looking for.
I agree with you, but I cannot agree with new format because it is
difficult to understand two different "VERSION" meanings.
IMHO, we can change the format as below:
Hi Yasumasa,
On 2018-03-22 11:35, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi all,
Please review this change:
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199519
webrev: cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8199519/webrev.00/
The fix seems to make things to work as expected. Manually tested it and
Mach5
Hi Ioi,
I think a proper fix should clarify which VERSION we are looking for.
I agree with you, but I cannot agree with new format because it is difficult to
understand two different "VERSION" meanings.
IMHO, we can change the format as below:
1. Define same VERSION to all @SECTION. It is
Thanks Alan & mandy for reviews.
Amit
From: Alan Bateman
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:54 PM
To: Amit Sapre; Mandy Chung; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net;
compiler-...@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR : JDK-8071367 - JMX: Remove SNMP support
On 23/03/2018 10:43, Amit Sapre wrote:
12 matches
Mail list logo