On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:37:39 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The support for locating zipped (and subsequently unzipped) core files broke 
>> when a message in the hs_err file changed, causing CoreUtils.java to not 
>> detect the alternate location of the core file. It became broken 2 months 
>> ago by the changes for 
>> [JDK-8368551](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8368551). That changed the 
>> hotspot message related to the core file location that CoreUtils was 
>> searching for:
>> 
>> 
>>      if (core_pattern[0] == '|') {
>>        written = jio_snprintf(buffer, bufferSize,
>> - ""%s" (or dumping to %s/core.%d)",
>> + ""%s" (alternatively, falling back to %s/core.%d)",
>>                               &core_pattern[1], p, current_process_id());
>> 
>> 
>> CoreUtils was checking for "or ", but it needs to check for 
>> "alternatively...".
>> 
>> Testing: I checked our CI runs, which used to skip all the SA core files 
>> tests on linux-x64 and linux-aarch64, and they are now running the tests and 
>> passing properly.
>
> Chris Plummer has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into 8375477_coreutils
>    Merge
>  - fix whitespace
>  - get rid of unnecessary throws clause
>  - fix zipped core file support

test/lib/jdk/test/lib/util/CoreUtils.java line 237:

> 235:              * into this path.
> 236:              */
> 237:             Matcher m = Pattern.compile(ALT_LOCATION_STRING + ".* ([^ 
> ]+[^\\)])\\)?").matcher(stringWithLocation);

Trying to understand the regex. 8-)
os::get_core_path printed " (alternatively, falling back to %s/core.%d)"

Do we need the initial .* in the regex?
Would it be " ([^ ]+)\)" or " (.*)\)"

Maybe there's some complication and the other [^\)])\)? is needed?  Thanks

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29284#discussion_r2731396482

Reply via email to