Re: RFR(XS): 8200187: Exclude 3 long-running tests from tier1

Thanks for that Leonid. As long as they are still included somewhere that is fine. David On 27/03/2018 9:32 AM, Leonid Mesnik wrote: Hi There is no strict rules and time budgets for hotspot tiers. It is assumed that faster tests should be executed earlier tiers. The order and total impact

Re: RFR(XS): 8200187: Exclude 3 long-running tests from tier1

Hi Leonid, The exclusion of these 3 tests from tier1 looks ok to me. It did lead me to some other questions however. The first was that if you exclude them from tier1, how to they get included in a later tier. The answer, for the SA tests, is that all of serviceability is included in tier2.

Re: RFR: JDK-8198393: Instrumentation.retransformClasses() throws NullPointerException when handling a zero-length array

Looks good. thanks, Chris On 3/26/18 4:36 PM, Alex Menkov wrote: Hi Serguei, updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/retransformClassesZeroLength/webrev.02/ - updated copyright in th eInstrumentationImpl.java - removed inused imports in the test On 03/26/2018 14:31,

Re: RFR: JDK-8198393: Instrumentation.retransformClasses() throws NullPointerException when handling a zero-length array

Hi Alex, On 3/26/18 16:36, Alex Menkov wrote: Hi Serguei, updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/retransformClassesZeroLength/webrev.02/ - updated copyright in th eInstrumentationImpl.java - removed inused imports in the test Thank you for the update! On 03/26/2018

Re: RFR: JDK-8198393: Instrumentation.retransformClasses() throws NullPointerException when handling a zero-length array

Hi Serguei, updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/retransformClassesZeroLength/webrev.02/ - updated copyright in th eInstrumentationImpl.java - removed inused imports in the test On 03/26/2018 14:31, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Alex, It looks good to me. A couple of

Re: RFR(XS): 8200187: Exclude 3 long-running tests from tier1

Hi There is no strict rules and time budgets for hotspot tiers. It is assumed that faster tests should be executed earlier tiers. The order and total impact of of these test depends on how they are executed. Here is time of execution of tier1 groups with and without these excluded tests: The

Re: RFR: JDK-8198393: Instrumentation.retransformClasses() throws NullPointerException when handling a zero-length array

Forgot to tell that the copyright comment in the InstrumentationImpl.java needs an update. Thanks, Serguei On 3/26/18 14:31, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Alex, It looks good to me. A couple of questions:  - How does the test fail with the unfixed code?  - It seems, the following

Re: RFR: JDK-8198393: Instrumentation.retransformClasses() throws NullPointerException when handling a zero-length array

Hi Alex, It looks good to me. A couple of questions:  - How does the test fail with the unfixed code?  - It seems, the following imports in the test are not needed: 34 import java.io.IOException; . . . 43 import java.util.Arrays; . . . 45 import jdk.test.lib.Utils; 46 import

Re: RFR: 8200204: SharedArchiveConfigFile cannot accept output of VM.stringtable

On 3/26/18 6:21 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi Ioi, I think a proper fix should clarify which VERSION we are looking for. I agree with you, but I cannot agree with new format because it is difficult to understand two different "VERSION" meanings. IMHO, we can change the format as below:

Re: RFR: 8199519: Several GC tests fails with: java.lang.NumberFormatException: Unparseable number: "-"

Hi Yasumasa, On 2018-03-22 11:35, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: Hi all, Please review this change:    JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199519 webrev: cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8199519/webrev.00/ The fix seems to make things to work as expected. Manually tested it and Mach5

Re: RFR: 8200204: SharedArchiveConfigFile cannot accept output of VM.stringtable

Hi Ioi, I think a proper fix should clarify which VERSION we are looking for. I agree with you, but I cannot agree with new format because it is difficult to understand two different "VERSION" meanings. IMHO, we can change the format as below: 1. Define same VERSION to all @SECTION. It is

RE: RFR : JDK-8071367 - JMX: Remove SNMP support

Thanks Alan & mandy for reviews. Amit From: Alan Bateman Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:54 PM To: Amit Sapre; Mandy Chung; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net; compiler-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR : JDK-8071367 - JMX: Remove SNMP support On 23/03/2018 10:43, Amit Sapre wrote: