Hi,
I see there remaining failures are not trivial to fix in a hurry. So I
think it's better to just backout this change and than prepare new fix...
I'm pushing this backout now.
Regards, Peter
On 12/26/2016 06:55 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
many of the tier 1 failures listed seems to fail due to a cyclic
bootstrap dependency on the new PublicMethods -> Policy.isSet() ->
... -> PublicMethods that appears in all tests which install a
security manager.
It turns out the dependency is only there (Policy.isSet) to ensure the
VM has booted to a state where System.getProperty will return actual
values to feed into sun.security.util.Debug (the state of which does
not in any way vary with Policy), and could be replaced by the new
VM.isBooted() (or VM.initLevel() > 1):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/8171988.01/
With this most test failures disappear, but there are still 5 tests
in java/lang/Class which fail with a message more directly related to
the changes:
expected java.lang.NullPointerException for null -- FAILED
Perhaps problem list these 5 together with the above change as a fix to
this issue?
Thanks!
/Claes
On 2016-12-26 18:30, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26 Dec 2016, at 16:26, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote:
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.
My preference is to anti-delta. There are just too many tests
failing, ~35 across all platforms and tiers.
Peter,
Let me know if you need any help pushing this.
-Chris.
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