RFR 8171988: backout of 8062389, 8029459, 8061950

[Chris Hegarty]

> On 26 Dec 2016, at 16:26, joe darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Assuming we'll want to revisit this work at some point, there are some advantages to anti-delta-ing the code changes now, but just problem listing the tests in terms of making a less confusing history.

My preference is to anti-delta. There are just too many tests failing, ~35 across all platforms and tiers.

Peter,
  Let me know if you need any help pushing this.

-Chris.


> Thanks,
> 
> -Joe
> 
> 
> On 12/26/2016 1:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:35, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>> 
>>> I've been told that the latest change I pushed causes some tests to fail, so I prepared a backout patch for 8062389, 8029459, 8061950:
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/backout.09/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/backout.09/webrev.01/>
>> I just grabbed the webrev patch, applied it to a local repo, then
>> compared that against a repo that had been updated to the
>> change prior to your push. They are identical, so this appears
>> to be an accurate anti-delta.
>> 
>> Maybe file a new bug, or just make it clear in the synopsis of
>> 8171988 that it is an anti-delta.
>> 
>> 
>>> From the stacktrace of the bug report, it seems an early initialization issue with VarHandle(s) involved. Can you shed some light into what tests are failing?
>> I’ll post a few comments in 8171988 with sample failures.
>> 
>> -Chris.
>> 
>>> But first let us backout that change.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Peter
>>> 
>>>> On 12/26/2016 10:09 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm taking a look at this...
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Peter
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/26/2016 06:14 AM, Jeff Dinkins wrote:
>>>>> Hi Peter -
>>>>> 
>>>>> I just received mail from out SQE manager, saying that your last changeset has caused our test harness to hiccup.  I don’t have much more detail besides the below bug, but I’m wondering if you could do us a huge favor and roll your change back for now while it’s debugged (and so we can get our automated tests going again).
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171988 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171988>
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> -jeff
>>>>> 
>