Hi David,
Thank you for the comments!
On 5/21/20 23:58, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 22/05/2020 4:17 pm, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
PING: This is pretty small and easy to review fix.
Thanks!
Serguei
On 5/19/20 09:28, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review fix for:
PING: I'm still looking for reviewers
for this fix!
Thanks!
Serguei
On 5/18/20 00:34, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 5/18/20 00:30, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Coleen and potential
Thanks a lot, David!
Serguei
On 5/21/20 23:18, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Looks good.
Thanks,
David
On 22/05/2020 4:09 pm, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for the suggestions and corrections!
I've updated the CSR description and regenerated the spec html files
Hi David,
Thank you for the suggestions and corrections!
I've updated the CSR description and regenerated the spec html files and
webrev.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/21/20 22:34, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On 22/05/2020 3:02 pm, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review a fix for:
Hi David,
Some tiers in Mach5 are configured to run tests with '-showversion' VM options.
In JDK-8242009 [3] we started forwarding test VM options to j-*tools
and some tests that launch them and expect an empty stderr (apart from VM
warnings) need to be corrected to either ignore version
Hi Daniil,
On 22/05/2020 5:24 pm, Daniil Titov wrote:
Hi David,
Some tiers in Mach5 are configured to run tests with '-showversion' VM options.
In JDK-8242009 [3] we started forwarding test VM options to j-*tools
Okay. Filtering it out seems fine then.
Thanks,
David
and some tests that
Hi David,
The updated webrev is with your comments addressed:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2020/8244571-jvmti-test-jnicheck.2/
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/22/20 00:43, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for the comments!
On 5/21/20 23:58, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Looks good.
Thanks,
David
On 22/05/2020 4:09 pm, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for the suggestions and corrections!
I've updated the CSR description and regenerated the spec html files and
webrev.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/21/20 22:34, David Holmes wrote:
PING: This is pretty small and easy to
review fix.
Thanks!
Serguei
On 5/19/20 09:28, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244571
Webrev:
Hi Mikael, looks good, thanks for the cleanup .
Best regards, Matthias
-Original Message-
From: ppc-aix-port-dev On Behalf Of
Mikael Vidstedt
Sent: Freitag, 22. Mai 2020 05:37
To: hotspot compiler ;
hotspot-runtime-...@openjdk.java.net runtime
; serviceability-dev
;
Hi Serguei,
On 22/05/2020 4:17 pm, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
PING: This is pretty small and easy to review fix.
Thanks!
Serguei
On 5/19/20 09:28, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Please, review fix for:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244571
Webrev:
On 5/21/2020 2:33 PM, Harold Seigel wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for looking at this! Please review this new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hseigel/webrev.01/webrev/
Hi Harold,
I think this webrev looks good! A couple of minor comments:
- oops/instanceKlass.cpp:
line #236, do you
Thanks Lois!
I'll add the two ResourceMarks before the changes get pushed.
Harold
On 5/22/2020 11:07 AM, Lois Foltan wrote:
On 5/21/2020 2:33 PM, Harold Seigel wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for looking at this! Please review this new webrev:
Hi Chris,
On 05/22/2020 17:12, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Alex,
I think this is a good experiment, but I don't really see a reason to
push the change and wait for a failure to pop up in CI testing. I think
you should be able to get the data you are looking for with adhoc runs.
I find it pretty
Hi all,
please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244703
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk15/jdwp_javalib_dep/webrev/
The issue is a regression from JDK-8222529 which introduced dependency
jdwp lib of java lib.
The fix removes the dependency and
I don't think this approach adds any value to test coverage.
We have other tests which are targeted to test the methods.
IMO the test can still test the methods, but with relaxed conditions.
maybe something like
1. at the beginning:
getTotalStartedThreadCount() >= 1,
getThreadCount() >= 1
Hi Alex,
I was thinking about it as well. But the test also indirectly tests
getTotalStartedThreadCount(), getThreadCount(), and getPeakThreadCount()
methods of ThreadMXBean. So I tried to not reduce the test coverage.
Best regards,
Daniil
On 5/22/20, 10:26 AM, "Alex Menkov" wrote:
Hi
Hi Daniil,
I'm not sure all this retry logic is a good way.
As mentioned in jira the most important part of the testing is ensuring
that you find all the created threads when they are alive, and you don't
find them when they are dead. The actual thread count checking is not
that important.
I
On 22/05/2020 18:50, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi all,
please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244703
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk15/jdwp_javalib_dep/webrev/
The issue is a regression from JDK-8222529 which introduced dependency
jdwp lib of java lib.
Hi Chris,
Thank you for the review!
I'll make it consistent.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/22/20 11:33, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Just one very minor editing suggestion. Where you have "If
canUnrestrictedlyRedefineClasses() is false," there is a comma placed
here, but the previous two
Thank you for the review, Chris!
Serguei
On 5/22/20 11:57, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Serguei,
Looks good, and I agree with David's comments. I was thinking the same
thing when I first looked at your original changes.
thanks,
Chris
On 5/22/20 2:32 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi
Hi Daniil,
There is one reference to "jvmwarningmsg" that occurs before it is
declared while all the rest all come after. It probably would make sense
to move its declaration up near the top of the file.
92 private static void matchListedProcesses(OutputAnalyzer output) {
93
Hi Alex,
The fix looks good.
> And I'm not sure why len+len/2+2 is used there.
> In my fix I allocated len*4+1 (for the worst case - each symbol
requires 4 bytes to encode plus 1 byte for terminal 0).
I agree, the size len+len/2+2 looks very strange.
Most likely, we get error messages
Hi Alan,
thank you for the review.
On 05/22/2020 11:16, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 22/05/2020 18:50, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi all,
please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8244703
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk15/jdwp_javalib_dep/webrev/
The issue is a
Hi Serguei,
Just one very minor editing suggestion. Where you have "If
canUnrestrictedlyRedefineClasses() is false," there is a comma
placed here, but the previous two bullet items are of a similar
form, yet have no comma. I suggest you make all 3
Hi Serguei,
Looks good, and I agree with David's comments. I was thinking the same
thing when I first looked at your original changes.
thanks,
Chris
On 5/22/20 2:32 AM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David,
The updated webrev is with your comments addressed:
I was thinking in a similar direction.
It is better to count only tested threads instead of the unreliable and
expensive retries.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 5/22/20 10:26, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi Daniil,
I'm not sure all this retry logic is a good way.
As mentioned in jira the most important part of
Hi Serguei,
thanks for the review.
On 05/22/2020 12:47, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
The fix looks good.
> And I'm not sure why len+len/2+2 is used there.
> In my fix I allocated len*4+1 (for the worst case - each symbol
requires 4 bytes to encode plus 1 byte for terminal
Hi Alex,
I think this is a good experiment, but I don't really see a reason to
push the change and wait for a failure to pop up in CI testing. I think
you should be able to get the data you are looking for with adhoc runs.
I find it pretty easy to reproduce by just running all the SA tests
Hi all,
Please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8245660
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk15/windbg_waitForEvent_try/webrev/
This is temporary change to try different approaches to fix
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8204994 (SA might fail to
30 matches
Mail list logo