Re: RFR (XS): 8153902 remove com/sun/jdi/InterfaceMethodsTest.java, com/sun/jdi/InvokeTest.java from ProblemList

Removed unneeded attachment below. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, Serguei On 4/8/16 16:04, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: Please, review this trivial, test-only change (enabling previously excluded tests). Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153902 Summary: The tests need t

RFR (XS): 8153902 remove com/sun/jdi/InterfaceMethodsTest.java, com/sun/jdi/InvokeTest.java from ProblemList

Please, review this trivial, test-only change (enabling previously excluded tests). Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153902 Summary: The tests need to be enabled again after the fix of: JDK-8153673 [BACKOUT] JDWP: Memory Leak: GlobalRefs never deleted when processing invo

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > > I moved the tests from a directory named 'jdk.unsupported' to > unsupported', as other tests, in test/tools/jdeps/module, use > test/tools/jdeps as a test library, and the directory/test lib > name is conflicting with the module name. jtr

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

On 08/04/16 03:52, Mandy Chung wrote: On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: Enough technical debt has been paid down that we can now create the new JDK-specific module as proposed by JEP 260 [1], named jdk.unsupported. This module will initially contain, and export, the sun.misc p

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

On 07/04/16 19:57, Alan Bateman wrote: On 07/04/2016 18:14, Chris Hegarty wrote: Enough technical debt has been paid down that we can now create the new JDK-specific module as proposed by JEP 260 [1], named jdk.unsupported. This module will initially contain, and export, the sun.misc package, an

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

On 08/04/2016 15:31, Peter Levart wrote: Will jdk.unsupported be "required public" by java.se? No because jdk.* are JDK-specific and should never be required by standard modules. Will you have to explicitly -addmodule jdk.unsupported for class-path programs too? It exports an API and the

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

On 08/04/16 15:31, Peter Levart wrote: On 04/08/2016 12:24 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: On 7 Apr 2016, at 19:14, Chris Hegarty wrote: Enough technical debt has been paid down that we can now create the new JDK-specific module as proposed by JEP 260 [1], named jdk.unsupported. This module will init

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

On 04/08/2016 12:24 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: On 7 Apr 2016, at 19:14, Chris Hegarty wrote: Enough technical debt has been paid down that we can now create the new JDK-specific module as proposed by JEP 260 [1], named jdk.unsupported. This module will initially contain, and export, the sun.misc

Re: RFR: 8150894: Unused -Xlog tag sequences are silently ignored.

Thanks Robbin! Marcus On 04/08/2016 02:44 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi Marcus Your change looks good. Thanks! /Robbin On 04/06/2016 08:46 AM, Marcus Larsson wrote: Hi, Please review the following patch to add a warning for when tag selections in -Xlog or VM.log don't match any tag sets used i

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

On 04/08/2016 03:26 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 2016-04-08 14:45, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi again, I missed LogLevel:Off, it should be: diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016 +0200 +++ b/src/share

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Thanks Marcus! /Robbin On 04/08/2016 03:41 PM, Marcus Larsson wrote: On 04/08/2016 03:26 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 2016-04-08 14:45, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi again, I missed LogLevel:Off, it should be: diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Thanks Bengt! /Robbin On 04/08/2016 03:26 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 2016-04-08 14:45, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi again, I missed LogLevel:Off, it should be: diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi Robbin, On 2016-04-08 14:45, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi again, I missed LogLevel:Off, it should be: diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016 +0200 +++ b/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 14:44:33

Re: RFR(s): 8153731: Increase max tag combinations for UL expression (config)

Hi Marcus On 04/08/2016 02:48 PM, Marcus Larsson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 04/08/2016 10:08 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8153731/webrev/ I just have one suggestion for a slightly better assert message: "Combination limit (" SIZE_FORMAT ")

Re: RFR(s): 8153731: Increase max tag combinations for UL expression (config)

Hi Robbin, On 04/08/2016 10:08 AM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8153731/webrev/ I just have one suggestion for a slightly better assert message: "Combination limit (" SIZE_FORMAT ") not sufficient for configuring all available tag sets ("

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi again, I missed LogLevel:Off, it should be: diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016 +0200 +++ b/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 14:44:33 2016 +0200 @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ const size_t vwr

Re: RFR: 8150894: Unused -Xlog tag sequences are silently ignored.

Hi Marcus Your change looks good. Thanks! /Robbin On 04/06/2016 08:46 AM, Marcus Larsson wrote: Hi, Please review the following patch to add a warning for when tag selections in -Xlog or VM.log don't match any tag sets used in the VM. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mlarsson/8150894/web

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi all, Updated after reviews: diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016 +0200 +++ b/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 14:26:44 2016 +0200 @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ const size_t vwrite_buffer_size

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi Bengt, On 04/08/2016 02:16 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 2016-04-08 14:19, Marcus Larsson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 04/08/2016 01:54 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153845 Tested with jprt. diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/sha

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi Marcus On 04/08/2016 02:19 PM, Marcus Larsson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 04/08/2016 01:54 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153845 Tested with jprt. diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/lo

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi Robbin, On 2016-04-08 14:19, Marcus Larsson wrote: Hi Robbin, On 04/08/2016 01:54 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153845 Tested with jprt. diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/log

Re: RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi Robbin, On 04/08/2016 01:54 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153845 Tested with jprt. diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016 +0200 +++ b/src/s

Re: RFR(s): 8153731: Increase max tag combinations for UL expression (config)

Thanks Stefan! /Robbin On 04/08/2016 02:02 PM, Stefan Karlsson wrote: Looks good. StefanK On 2016-04-08 10:08, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8153731/webrev/ Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153731 Tested with internal vm te

Re: RFR(s): 8153731: Increase max tag combinations for UL expression (config)

Looks good. StefanK On 2016-04-08 10:08, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi all, Please review, Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8153731/webrev/ Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153731 Tested with internal vm test (inc a new test for just this). Thanks! /Robbin

RFR(xs): 8153845: UL log write method missing essential assert

Hi all, Please review, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153845 Tested with jprt. diff -r 35cb720769c5 src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cpp --- a/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 08:51:45 2016 +0200 +++ b/src/share/vm/logging/logTagSet.cppFri Apr 08 13:3

Re: RFR(XS): JDK-8152679 DeadlockDetectionTest.java fails due to expected output missing

I see - thanks! > On 8 apr. 2016, at 11:54, Dmitry Samersoff > wrote: > > Staffan, > > I suspect its because of root/non-root. OS X attach doesn't work for > non-root user. Test check it and skips silently. But if the test run > under root, it tries to run and then fail. > > -Dmitry > > On 2

Re: RFR [9] 8153737: Unsupported Module

> On 7 Apr 2016, at 19:14, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > Enough technical debt has been paid down that we can now create the new > JDK-specific module as proposed by JEP 260 [1], named jdk.unsupported. > This module will initially contain, and export, the sun.misc package, > and will eventually expor

Re: RFR(XS): JDK-8152679 DeadlockDetectionTest.java fails due to expected output missing

Dmitry, + System.err.println("This test is not expected to work on OS X. Skipping"); I think, it has to be System.out, not System err (the same as at L107). No need to re-review if you fix it. Thanks, Serguei On 4/8/16 03:01, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Tim, Serguei, Thank you for the review.

Re: RFR(XS): JDK-8152679 DeadlockDetectionTest.java fails due to expected output missing

Tim, Serguei, Thank you for the review. The message updated (in-place, press shift-reload) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8152679/webrev.01/ -Dmitry On 2016-04-07 21:35, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: > Dmitry, > > I agree with Tim. > The message at L85 should not be alarming b

Re: RFR(XS): JDK-8152679 DeadlockDetectionTest.java fails due to expected output missing

Staffan, I suspect its because of root/non-root. OS X attach doesn't work for non-root user. Test check it and skips silently. But if the test run under root, it tries to run and then fail. -Dmitry On 2016-04-08 11:10, Staffan Larsen wrote: > Why did this test start failing? > >> On 7 apr. 2016

Re: RFR(XS): JDK-8152679 DeadlockDetectionTest.java fails due to expected output missing

Why did this test start failing? > On 7 apr. 2016, at 20:35, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: > > Dmitry, > > I agree with Tim. > The message at L85 should not be alarming but look similar to the one at L107. > Something, like this: > 85System.out.println("This test is not expected to

RFR(s): 8153731: Increase max tag combinations for UL expression (config)

Hi all, Please review, Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rehn/8153731/webrev/ Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153731 Tested with internal vm test (inc a new test for just this). Thanks! /Robbin