Hi Alexey,
Thanks for the review. I still do have to send a webrev up because I would
need someone to sponsor it, test it, and push it :-) (I think Serguei said
he would do it or was doing it so we might have to wait for his return).
So here it is with the reviewed-by filled in:
Hi Jc,
The fix looks good to me too.
minor note:
564 if (JNI_ENV_PTR(jni)->ExceptionOccurred(JNI_ENV_ARG(jni))) {
565 fprintf(stderr, "fill_native_frames: Exception in jni
NewWeakGlobalRef\n");
566 }
I'd expect error message mention "event_storage_add" instead
Hi Jc,
This looks good to me especially because we discussed it a lot
internally.
The testing looks pretty good too.
I submitted mach5 jobs for HepMonitor tests repeating 100 times
and also normal tier1, tier2, hs-tier2-5.
But it was not tested
Hi all,
I did the new version that calls FatalError if JNI fails a call. This has
the advantage of not having to complicate the Java tests at all, while
adding the post-JNI call checks.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.03/
Bug:
I'm pretty sure changes that only
affect tests can be any priority. But still, be a lot more
cautious the closer we get to release.
Chris
On 7/26/18 12:15 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
We entered RDP2 today (07.26). So only
On 7/26/18 12:15, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
We
entered RDP2 today (07.26). So only P1 and P2 bug fixes allowed.
Sorry, I confused 07.26 with 07.28.
Then it is 12 only.
Thanks,
Serguei
We entered RDP2 today (07.26). So only P1 and P2 bug fixes allowed.
Dan
On 7/26/18 3:14 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Yes, of course it has to be well tested before the push.
Does it make sense to plan it to push to 11 (after th testing is done)?
Thanks,
Serguei
On 7/26/18 12:08,
Yes, of course it has to be well tested
before the push.
Does it make sense to plan it to push to 11 (after th testing is
done)?
Thanks,
Serguei
On 7/26/18 12:08, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Please
make sure this
Please make sure this fix is well tested in Mach5 prior to pushing.
In particular, I'm focused on reducing the noise in Mach5 tier[1-3]
so adding any new failures there will make me grumpy :-)
Dan
On 7/26/18 3:03 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi all,
With the FatalError idea, here is the webrev to
Hi Jc,
Good idea.
I was thinking about something like this.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 7/26/18 10:40, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi Serguei,
As I was looking at another test bug
Hi Jc,
It looks good to me.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 7/26/18 09:58, JC Beyler wrote:
Hi all,
The tests in the HeapMonitor subsystem has a lot of JNI
calls. There is a need for verification
11 matches
Mail list logo
