On 12/02/2013 00:41, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
Right after I pushed the changeset for 8007420, Alan B let me know that
he had updated the JLI/JPLIS test infrastructure to support running the
tests with a JRE instead of a JDK. Alan made his changes in early
January,
but I had
On 2/11/13 8:34 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
Looks good, although I was surprised you don't need -e.
Thanks for the review!
If you only have a single edit cmd, then '-e' is not needed.
Dan
Coleen
On 02/11/2013 10:05 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I've revised one of the
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/11/13 7:05 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I've revised one of the tests to make it more portable based
on JPRT test results for the Code Review Round 1 version.
Here is the URL for the webrev for Code Review Round 2:
Thanks for another re-review!
Dan
On 2/11/13 10:28 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/11/13 7:05 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I've revised one of the tests to make it more portable based
on JPRT test results for the Code Review Round 1
Greetings,
Right after I pushed the changeset for 8007420, Alan B let me know that
he had updated the JLI/JPLIS test infrastructure to support running the
tests with a JRE instead of a JDK. Alan made his changes in early January,
but I had developed this test back in December. I never checked to
I agree, the test is a piece of art - nice example to start from for
future test development.
Ship it!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/6/13 12:08 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I've revised the tests based on Coleen's and Serguei's feedback
in Code Review Round 0.
Here is the URL for the
Thanks for the re-review!
Dan
On 2/7/13 1:30 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
I agree, the test is a piece of art - nice example to start from for
future test development.
Ship it!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/6/13 12:08 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I've revised the tests
Adding other alias and people back onto the thread...
Thanks for the re-review!
On 2/6/13 6:41 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
This is good that you added the INCLUDE_JVMTI. I didn't think it'd
add that much space, but it a good change.
I didn't think it would add much space either, but...
Thanks Serguei!
Dan
On 2/6/13 1:22 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/6/13 11:54 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
Thank you Dan - this is much better and sets a good model for the
rest of us.
thanks,
Karen
On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty
Both tests look good, I do not see any issues yet.
What is missed is a comment explaining what happened
when the bug is not fixed and what correct behavior is expected.
Maybe it'd make sense to put bad and good output into the comment,
not everything, but the most important fragments.
It would
On 2/5/13 10:50 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Both tests look good, I do not see any issues yet.
What is missed is a comment explaining what happened
when the bug is not fixed and what correct behavior is expected.
Maybe it'd make sense to put bad and good output into the comment,
not
On 2/5/13 12:56 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
New versions look great. Thank you.
Thanks!
For jdk8 only - is redefineclasses in the MINIMALVM? I missed your reply.
If so, I was assuming that the additional tracing would also be conditional
in the builds. I believe in addition to ifdef's there is
Adding back the missing aliases and people...
Coleen,
Thanks for the review. Replies embedded below.
On 2/4/13 7:26 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:55 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
And here is the webrev for the new tests (relative to JDK8-TL):
Dan,
All 3 versions of the code looks good. Thank you for enabling the printing for
product since
this type of problem is so hard to duplicate.
A small note, I think it would have been easier for the internal code logic
for the CPCE::check_no_old_or_obsolete_entries to reverse the true/false,
On 2/4/2013 10:15 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Adding back the missing aliases and people...
Sorry, I meant to send this re-all.
I missed something major in my earlier review.
The metadata-is_valid() flag should only be enabled in debug mode. It
adds a word to all metadata.
Coleen,
Karen,
Thanks for the reviews! Replies embedded below.
On 2/4/13 8:19 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
Dan,
All 3 versions of the code looks good. Thank you for enabling the printing for
product since
this type of problem is so hard to duplicate.
You're welcome.
A small note, I think it would
Thanks for the additional comment. Reply below.
On 2/4/13 8:34 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 2/4/2013 10:15 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Adding back the missing aliases and people...
Sorry, I meant to send this re-all.
I missed something major in my earlier review.
The
Adding back dropped aliases and people...
Thanks for reviewing the first test! Replies embedded below.
On 2/4/13 8:09 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:55 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
And here is the webrev for the new tests (relative to JDK8-TL):
On 2/4/13 10:16 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 2/4/2013 11:50 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Thanks for the additional comment. Reply below.
On 2/4/13 8:34 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
On 2/4/2013 10:15 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Adding back the missing aliases and people...
Sorry, I
Dan,
The fixes look good for all 3 HS versions (modulo discussions with
Coleen and Karen).
Great discovery, thank you for doing this!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 2/1/13 11:55 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,
I have a fix for the following JVM/TI bug:
7182152 Instrumentation hot
On 2/4/13 12:21 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Dan,
The fixes look good for all 3 HS versions (modulo discussions with
Coleen and Karen).
Great discovery, thank you for doing this!
Thanks Serguei!
I'm working on addressing Coleen's and Karen's comments
and will be rolling out three
On 2/4/2013 12:19 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Adding back dropped aliases and people...
I think I have all the aliases on this, this time.
Thanks for reviewing the first test! Replies embedded below.
Ok, now I see about the scaffolding framework for the first test. I can
say it looks
Greetings,
I've updated the fix due to comments in Code Review Round 0.
Here is a summary of changes made to the various files:
src/share/vm/oops/cpCacheOop.cpp (HSX-23.6, HSX-24)
src/share/vm/oops/cpCache.cpp (HSX-25)
src/share/vm/oops/klassVtable.cpp
- removed the new RC_TRACE_NO_CR()
Greetings,
I have a fix for the following JVM/TI bug:
7182152 Instrumentation hot swap test incorrect monitor count
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7182152
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-7182152
The fix for the bug in the product code is one line:
There are two new tests that will be pushed to the JDK repos using
a different bug ID (not yet filed):
New bug is now filed:
8007420 add test for 6805864 to com/sun/jdi, add test for 7182152
to java/lang/instrument
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8007420
And here is the webrev for the new tests (relative to JDK8-TL):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8007420-webrev/0-jdk8-tl/
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.
Dan
On 2/1/13 4:39 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
There are two new tests that will be pushed to the JDK repos using
26 matches
Mail list logo
