On 09/12/2013 10:12 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: > On 09/12/2013 04:45 AM, David Holmes wrote: >> Hi Jaroslav, >> >> You need a copyright notice in the new file. >> >> As written this test can only run on a full JDK - so please add it to >> the :needs_jdk group in TEST.groups. (Does jcmd really needs to come >> from the test-jdk? And use the VMOPTS passed to the test?) >> >> Is there a reason this test can't run on OSX? I know it would need >> further modification but was wondering if there is something inherent in >> the test that makes it inapplicable to OSX. >> >> I think the test would be a lot simpler if the jdk tests had the hotspot >> test library's process tools available. :( > > We have some, is there an obvious gap? > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/file/e407df8093dc/test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/
Hm, thanks for the info. I should have used this library instead. Please, stand by for the updated webrev. -JB- > > > -Chris. > >> >> David >> ----- >> >> On 12/09/2013 1:39 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: >>> Please, review the patch for an intermittently failing test. >>> >>> The test is a shell test, using files for the interprocess >>> synchronization. This leads to intermittent failures. >>> >>> In order to fix this the test is rewritten in Java - the original >>> functionality and outputs should be 100% preserved. The patch is >>> unfortunately a bit difficult to follow since there is no similarity >>> between the *.sh and *.java file so one needs to go through the new >>> source in whole. >>> >>> The changes in "launcher" files are all about adding permissions to >>> execute (0755) and as such the webrev shows no differences. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Issue : JDK-8004926 >>> Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8004926/webrev.00 >>> >>> -JB- >>>
