On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 01:25:25 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dan, >> I'm sorry, I do not see much value in this approach going forward. One line >> with a call to check_jvmti_status() does not add much to the platform >> dependency no to complexity in native code. Also, more sophisticated >> analysis of the returned error code frequently is needed. Also, I consider >> it not feasible to move a thousand of JVMTI tests in this direction. So that >> we will end up with inconsistency over all tests. >> I've already marked this as reviewed, so you can push it. But I'm against >> following this pattern going forward. Or at least, we need to consult with >> the SQE engineers first. >> Thanks, >> Serguei > > @sspitsyn - First, thanks for approving the changes! > > Second, I'm _not_ proposing changing any other JVM/TI tests to use this > style. The only > reason that this style works (for me and @robehn) is because none of these > JVM/TI calls > is expected to fail. The tests are carefully constructed to exercise the code > for a race > condition that will result in a hang or a crash (if something goes wrong). In > the case of > these tests, we don't need sophisticated analysis of the returned error codes. > > Again, thanks for approving these tests. Dan, thank you for extra explanation and for taking care to port these old tests! ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2899
