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.


PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8691

Reply via email to