Hello,
Assuming we'll want to revisit this work at some point, there are some
advantages to anti-delta-ing the code changes now, but just problem
listing the tests in terms of making a less confusing history.
Thanks,
-Joe
On 12/26/2016 1:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:35, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I've been told that the latest change I pushed causes some tests to fail, so I
prepared a backout patch for 8062389, 8029459, 8061950:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/backout.09/webrev.01/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/backout.09/webrev.01/>
I just grabbed the webrev patch, applied it to a local repo, then
compared that against a repo that had been updated to the
change prior to your push. They are identical, so this appears
to be an accurate anti-delta.
Maybe file a new bug, or just make it clear in the synopsis of
8171988 that it is an anti-delta.
From the stacktrace of the bug report, it seems an early initialization issue
with VarHandle(s) involved. Can you shed some light into what tests are failing?
I’ll post a few comments in 8171988 with sample failures.
-Chris.
But first let us backout that change.
Regards, Peter
On 12/26/2016 10:09 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I'm taking a look at this...
Regards, Peter
On 12/26/2016 06:14 AM, Jeff Dinkins wrote:
Hi Peter -
I just received mail from out SQE manager, saying that your last changeset has
caused our test harness to hiccup. I don’t have much more detail besides the
below bug, but I’m wondering if you could do us a huge favor and roll your
change back for now while it’s debugged (and so we can get our automated tests
going again).
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171988
<https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171988>
thanks!
-jeff
