RFR 8171988: backout of 8062389, 8029459, 8061950

[Peter Levart]

Hi,

I see there remaining failures are not trivial to fix in a hurry. So I 
think it's better to just backout this change and than prepare new fix...

I'm pushing this backout now.

Regards, Peter


On 12/26/2016 06:55 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> many of the tier 1 failures listed seems to fail due to a cyclic
> bootstrap dependency on the new PublicMethods -> Policy.isSet() ->
> ... -> PublicMethods that appears in all tests which install a
> security manager.
>
> It turns out the dependency is only there (Policy.isSet) to ensure the
> VM has booted to a state where System.getProperty will return actual
> values to feed into sun.security.util.Debug (the state of which does
> not in any way vary with Policy), and could be replaced by the new
> VM.isBooted() (or VM.initLevel() > 1):
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/scratch/8171988.01/
>
> With this most test failures disappear, but there are still 5 tests
> in java/lang/Class which fail with a message more directly related to
> the changes:
>
> expected java.lang.NullPointerException for null -- FAILED
>
> Perhaps problem list these 5 together with the above change as a fix to
> this issue?
>
> Thanks!
>
> /Claes
>
> On 2016-12-26 18:30, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>