I think checking the output after the second breakpoint would be a good
idea. However, rather than checking the line number, maybe just check
the contents of the line, which should be included in the breakpoint
event output.
Chris
On 9/14/18 3:23 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi Chris,
The file history does not contain any info about line number dependency.
I'll remove "11 before, 10 afterward" comment.
Actually the test is not clear to me.
Accordingly the test description jdb report obsolete line number in
the case, but the test does not verify its correctness, but just
checks _debuggee_ (not jdb) output for absence of "Internal exception".
The original bug is ancient, so it's hard to say if the test is
correct or not.
I can add extra testing - extract reported line numbers (by using
regexp "line=(\d+)\b") and verify that 2st breakpoint is reported with
the expected line number (1 less than line of the 1st breakpoint).
Thoughts?
--alex
On 09/14/2018 14:27, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Alex,
Just one issue I see. For RedefineTTYLineNumber.java, the original
test used to have this comment, which your removed:
52 // line number sensitive!!! Next line must be line 10.
It's not clear to me why this test was ever line number sensitive,
and whether you removed this sensitivity, or it just never existed.
In any case, you left in the following comment, which maybe should
also be removed:
47 System.out.println("in A, about to call B"); // 11
before, 10 afterward
Also, the println output from A() does not seem to match what the
test is doing. There is no call to B():
46 public void A() {
47 System.out.println("in A, about to call B"); // 11
before, 10 afterward
48 System.out.println("out from B");
49 }
Maybe that's some bit rot. My understanding of the point of the test
is while at the breakpoint at the start of A(), a redefine is done
that deletes a line above this point, and jdi needs to make the
appropriate adjustment of the current breakpoint line number. So
calling B() does not play a roll in this, but perhaps it did a one
point but the call was removed.
Also, I don't see any indication of line number sensitivity here, but
once again, maybe this is a bit rot issue and at one point it was
line number sensitive.
thanks,
Chris
On 9/14/18 12:59 PM, Alex Menkov wrote:
Hi all,
please review fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210760
webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/sh2java/step4/webrev.01/
--alex
