On Sep 20, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I don't see much value in documenting buggy behavior of early JDK7 in JDK8
> code. So, I would remove it.
OK. I think I had it in mainly to make sure the unit tests did something
interesting.
> Regarding the test:
> 31 * @run main/othervm/timeout=3600
> - why do you have timeout set to 1h?
Copy-and-paste from some other test. Removed.
> I like the idea how you count events.
>
> As a suggestion for enhancement - maybe it's more reliable to check the
> "type" of event as well? To ensure that particular class was initialized.
Good idea. But since each unique init event is stored in a separate variable,
it's easy to check this without explicit event types. I did the following, for
each of the six test cases:
@@ -150,9 +150,11 @@
}
private static int runFoo() throws Throwable {
+ assertEquals(Init1Tick, 0); // Init1 not initialized yet
int t1 = tick("runFoo");
int t2 = (int) INDY_foo().invokeExact();
int t3 = tick("runFoo done");
+ assertEquals(Init1Tick, t2); // when Init1 was initialized
assertEquals(t1+2, t3); // exactly two ticks in between
assertEquals(t1+1, t2); // init happened inside
return t2;
— John
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Ivanov
>
> On 9/20/13 1:38 AM, John Rose wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 7:24 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com
>> <mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please review this change for a change to the JSR 292 implementation:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8024599/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Summary: Align MH semantic with bytecode behavior of constructor and
>>> static member accesses, regarding <clinit> invocation.
>>>
>>> The change is to javadoc and unit tests, documenting and testing some
>>> corner cases of JSR 292 APIs.
>>
>> I have a reviewer (Alex Buckley) for the documentation changes, but I
>> would also like a quick code review for the unit test.
>>
>> Also, there is a code insertion (predicated on a "false" symbolic
>> constant) which serves to document the buggy JDK 7 behavior. I'm not
>> particularly attached to it, so I'm open to either a yea or nay on
>> keeping it. Leaning nay at the moment.
>>
>> — John
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>>
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
