On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 18:27:26 GMT, Chris Plummer <cjplum...@openjdk.org> wrote:

> In an effort go get rid of calls to Debugee.threadByName() or 
> Debugee.threadByNameOrThrow(), I found that many tests store the thread being 
> looked up in a static field of the debuggee. The test can fetch the 
> ThreadReference from the static field instead of looking it up using APIs 
> that rely on vm.allThreads().
> 
> Most of the changes take advantage of the following common pattern:
> 
> In the debugger:
> 
>     String          threadName1 = "thread1";
>     thread1 = debuggee.threadByNameOrThrow(threadName1);
> 
> In the debuggee:
> 
>     static Thread thread1 = null;
>     thread1 = JDIThreadFactory.newThread(new 
> Thread1addcountfilter001a("thread1"));
> 
> Note that the static field name for the Thread is the same as the thread 
> name. Thus we can easily switch from looking up by thread name to instead 
> looking up by static field name since they both use the same name.

test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/EventRequest/hashCode/hashcode001.java 
line 121:

> 119: 
> 120:                 case 0:
> 121:                        ThreadReference thread = debuggee.mainThread();

This is one that was missed during the PR for #24867.

test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/EventRequestManager/createStepRequest/crstepreq003.java
 line 81:

> 79: 
> 80:     static final int lineForBreakInThread    = 141;
> 81:     static final int[] checkedLines = { 142, 142, 182 };

Note the added lines in the debuggee below.

test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/EventRequestManager/createStepRequest/crstepreq004.java
 line 82:

> 80:     static final int lineForBreakInThread = 149;
> 81:     static final int[] checkedLines = { 163, 163, 196 };
> 82:     static final int[] checkedLinesAlt = { 164, 164, 196 };

Note the added lines in the debuggee below.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24935#discussion_r2064317075
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24935#discussion_r2064320290
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24935#discussion_r2064321920

Reply via email to