RFR: 8350786: Some java/lang jtreg tests miss requires vm.hasJFR [v2]

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:33:47 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaesken at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> No, there is nothing for that. There is a conceptual leap between determining how to compile hotspot and how to decide which modules to include in the image, and is not at all clear how you would want to integrate these two. Like, should you exclude models by saying a hotspot feature is not needed? Or, should you modify how hotspot is compiled by saying that you want to exclude a model?
>> 
>> I think it is better left to whoever configures the build to figure such things out.
>
>> No, there is nothing for that. There is a conceptual leap between determining how to compile hotspot and how to decide which modules to include in the image, and is not at all clear how you would want to integrate these two. Like, should you exclude models by saying a hotspot feature is not needed? Or, should you modify how hotspot is compiled by saying that you want to exclude a model?
>> 
>> I think it is better left to whoever configures the build to figure such things out.
> 
> I was just following up to the idea stated above 
> 'If the only VM to be built is the minimal VM then maybe it should filter down the set of modules to include'
> but this is not so easy it seems.
> Regarding - 'should you exclude models (modules?) by saying a hotspot feature is not needed?'  excluding the JVM feature  JFR means that the jfr related modules are broken/not (fully) working.
> Excluding them would probably be logical (and also help the tests because quite a lot of tests do not have requires vm.hasJFR or requires vm.jvmti to check if the test makes sense on some JVM with limited features) .

If you want to see that implemented, the first step is to open an enhancement issue on JBS.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23805#discussion_r1974374119