Re: RFR: 8258917: NativeMemoryTracking is handled by launcher inconsistenly

2021-01-15 Thread Zhengyu Gu
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:50:16 GMT, Alex Menkov wrote: > The fix adds NMT handling for non-java launchers Looks good - Marked as reviewed by zgu (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2106

RFR: 8258917: NativeMemoryTracking is handled by launcher inconsistenly

2021-01-15 Thread Alex Menkov
The fix adds NMT handling for non-java launchers - Commit messages: - Handle NMT for non-java launchers Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2106/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=2106&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-82

Re: RFR: 8258917: NativeMemoryTracking is handled by launcher inconsistenly

2021-01-15 Thread Alex Menkov
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:50:16 GMT, Alex Menkov wrote: > The fix adds NMT handling for non-java launchers Added serviceability as serviceability tools use launcher functionality - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2106

Integrated: 8259266: com/sun/jdi/JdbOptions.java failed with "RuntimeException: 'prop[boo] = >foo 2<' missing from stdout/stderr"

2021-01-15 Thread Alex Menkov
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:39:47 GMT, Alex Menkov wrote: > Looks like "Bad file number" message was used long time ago. > Now the message for this IOException can be "Stream Closed" or "Stream closed" This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: d63388c0 Author:Alex Menkov URL:

Integrated: 8259799: vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/Breakpoint/breakpoint001 is incorrect

2021-01-15 Thread Leonid Mesnik
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:09:59 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote: > est vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/Breakpoint/breakpoint001 has incorrect check of > strcmp results here: > > for (i=0; i if (strcmp(methNam,METHODS[i][0]) && > strcmp(methSig,METHODS[i][1])) { > printf("CHECK

Re: RFR: 8257733: Move module-specific data from make to respective module

2021-01-15 Thread mark . reinhold
2020/12/4 6:08:13 -0800, er...@openjdk.java.net: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:30:02 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >>> And I can certainly move jdwp.spec to java.base instead. That's the >>> reason I need input on this: All I know is that is definitely not >>> the responsibility of the Build Group to maintai