On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 19:55:47 GMT, Jiangli Zhou <[email protected]> wrote:
>> test/jdk/com/sun/crypto/provider/Cipher/AES/TestGCMSplitBound.java line 26: >> >>> 24: /* >>> 25: * @test >>> 26: * @bug 8371864 >> >> Does it make sense to just run the unit test on architectures with >> `@requires vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx512f.*" | vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx2.*"` >> annotation? > > Thanks for reviewing and testing! > >> Does it make sense to just run the unit test on architectures with @requires >> vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx512f.*" | vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx2.*" annotation? > > Limiting the test execution on the relevant devices is a good idea. We can > also check for `os.simpleArch == "x64"`. We probably could check for > ".*avx512.*" instead ".*avx512f.*" just to make sure we still get the proper > test coverage in case there is any future/hidden bugs with populating cpu > feature flags. > > I just did a quick testing: > On my local machine, these related cpu feature flags are set: `avx, avx2`. > > On a machine enabled with the `aesgcm_avx512` intrinsic, these are the > related cpu feature flags: > `avx, avx2, avx512f, avx512dq, avx512cd, avx512bw, avx512vl, > avx512_vpopcntdq, avx512_vpclmulqdq, avx512_vaes, avx512_vnni, avx512_vbmi2, > avx512_vbmi, avx512_bitalg, avx512_ifma` Added `@requires`. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28363#discussion_r2566688828
