On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 22:21:54 GMT, Jakob Cornell <d...@openjdk.java.net> wrote:

>> This has been under discussion on and off for the past month or so on 
>> serviceability-dev, and I think a CSR request is required, so this may be a 
>> work in progress.
>> 
>> Notes on the patch:
>> 
>> - The `list` command previously marked a line in each listing with `=>`.  In 
>> a bare `list` this is the next line up for execution.  Previously when 
>> requesting a specific location (e.g. `list 5`) the requested line would be 
>> marked.  With the patch applied, `list` will only ever mark the next line up 
>> for execution.  This is consistent with the behavior of GDB and PDB (at 
>> least).
>> - `EOF` is printed when the repeat setting is on and a bare `list` command 
>> follows a listing containing the last source line.  This feature is from 
>> PDB; it's a somewhat softer message than the one for an explicit `list` 
>> request that's out of range.
>> - I don't speak Chinese or Japanese, so I've omitted localizations for the 
>> new messages in those locales.  However, I updated the help text in both to 
>> include the new commands, with the descriptions left empty for now.
>
> Jakob Cornell has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Restore update of copyright messages in resource files

Just verified that this test still passes for me locally on LInux.  I see from 
Daniel's test logs where the behavior is differing on the Windows build, and 
I'll see if I can reproduce it on a Windows system.  I'll also look into fixing 
the issue of the `AssertionError`s being ignored.  But I wonder if it would be 
better to throw `RuntimeException` instead of calling `failure`.  If an 
assertion fails, the state of the debugger may be incompatible with the state 
of the test code, and it seem most natural to me that it be aborted at that 
point.

Should I open a new pull request linked to 8276208 for these changes?

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5290

Reply via email to