On Fri, 13 May 2022 13:18:55 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I think I agree with @AlanBateman - in the sense that this seems to go down >>> a slippery slope where every test would need to be executed against all >>> possible GCs. AFAIK, there are no other foreign tests doing this. >> >> I think it's a waste of time to write a separate test for this bug. >> >> I can't understand why you are against adding one more test config in the >> foreign test. >> Yes, it caught the bug in ShenandoahGC but who knows it wouldn't find some >> other bugs in the foreign api in the future. >> If you are still against the newly added test config, I can revert the test >> change. >> Thanks. > > My comment seems to have never made it through. The problem with what your > are doing is two-fold: > 1. When running the test suite specifically to test xGC for whatever x you > are now forcing a test run for Shenandoah. > 2. When x is Shenandoah then you run this test twice. > > You don't need a config just to run this with Shenandoah - you run the test > suite with Shenandoah. The test change had been reverted. Thanks. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8691