Thanks Andrew and Chris. Pushed here:
https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/902cef494e66
Nick
On 14/08/2019 16:10, Andrew Dinn wrote:
On 14/08/2019 03:28, Chris Plummer wrote:
On 8/13/19 6:26 PM, Nick Gasson wrote:
Hi Chris,
The changes look good, although I think the new file should
On 14/08/2019 03:28, Chris Plummer wrote:
> On 8/13/19 6:26 PM, Nick Gasson wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>> The changes look good, although I think the new file should go in the
>>> serviceability/sa test directory, unless you think this is a generally
>>> useful class that might be used by tests
On 8/13/19 6:26 PM, Nick Gasson wrote:
Hi Chris,
The changes look good, although I think the new file should go in the
serviceability/sa test directory, unless you think this is a generally
useful class that might be used by tests outside of the sa.
The new file is under
Hi Chris,
The changes look good, although I think the new file should go in the
serviceability/sa test directory, unless you think this is a generally
useful class that might be used by tests outside of the sa.
The new file is under test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/sa/ - the same
directory
On 8/13/19 2:38 AM, Nick Gasson wrote:
Hi Chris,
Adding to Andrew comments, maybe the solution is to have the test extend
LingeredApp so it can produce a more reliable stack trace other than the
default one you get with LingeredApp. If that's too much trouble, I
don't mind the solution you
Hi Chris,
Adding to Andrew comments, maybe the solution is to have the test extend
LingeredApp so it can produce a more reliable stack trace other than the
default one you get with LingeredApp. If that's too much trouble, I
don't mind the solution you came up with, but seems writing a
Hi Nick,
Adding to Andrew comments, maybe the solution is to have the test extend
LingeredApp so it can produce a more reliable stack trace other than the
default one you get with LingeredApp. If that's too much trouble, I
don't mind the solution you came up with, but seems writing a
Thanks Andrew. Can someone from the serviceability team check this is OK
to push?
Nick
On 08/08/2019 18:16, Andrew Dinn wrote:
Hi Nick,
On 08/08/2019 10:32, Nick Gasson wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229118
Webrev:
On 8/8/19 11:16 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
> I'm not 100% clear what the point of this test is but it looks like it
> is meant to exercise the stack backtrace code when there is a compiled
> method on the stack. If so then I guess your hack fits the bill while
> removing the -Xcomp flag from the
Hi Nick,
On 08/08/2019 10:32, Nick Gasson wrote:
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229118
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngasson/8229118/webrev.0/
>
> This test starts a sub-process with -Xcomp and then uses the SA to get a
> stack trace of it. It expects to see this line:
Hi,
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229118
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngasson/8229118/webrev.0/
This test starts a sub-process with -Xcomp and then uses the SA to get a
stack trace of it. It expects to see this line:
In code in NMethod for
11 matches
Mail list logo
