Review request: JDK-8006753 fix failed for JDK-8002415 White box testing API for HotSpot

[Coleen Phillimore]

I've looked at this.   It seems very reasonable and not hacky to me to 
have the whitebox api built in the jtreg test/library directory.

Thanks,
Coleen

On 02/05/2013 01:52 PM, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
> Thanks Dmitry and Christian for the reviews.
> Can someone with Reviewer status please have a look at this?
>
> /Mikael
>
> On 2013-02-04 22:03, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> Mikael,
>>
>> Looks good for me.
>>
>> -Dmitry
>>
>> On 2013-02-04 17:59, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Background:
>>> Even from the beginning of the WhiteBox testing API implementation the
>>> tests have not worked on builds promoted by release engineering due to
>>> the fact that the wb.jar file containing the Java classes was not
>>> imported by the JDK-level makefiles.
>>> On one level this was ok since we didn't want to ship the classes to 
>>> end
>>> users and we worked around the complexity of somehow post-processing 
>>> the
>>> RE bundles to remove them.
>>>
>>> The problem is that we aren't able to run the WhiteBox tests in
>>> promotion testing, or to verify fixes against earlier builds.
>>>
>>> Solution:
>>> The solution suggested here is to put the WhiteBox helper classes in 
>>> the
>>> testlibrary directory under test/ and
>>> * tell jtreg to first compile the classes
>>> * run a special Java program to copy the classes to the test work 
>>> directory
>>> * run the white box test with -Xbootclasspath/a:. to pick up the copied
>>> classes.
>>>
>>> The solution is kind-of hackish but I've been unable to come up with a
>>> better solution without performing complex surgery on jtreg.
>>>
>>> The changes to the make/ directory should basically revert the makefile
>>> changes that were added to support this API.
>>>
>>> Webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgerdin/8006753/webrev.0/
>>> Bug:
>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8006753
>>>
>>> Note about renamed/moved files:
>>> I will try to make sure that the moved/renamed files will be tracked
>>> properly by mercurial, but I think that using patch files and MQ breaks
>>> this so I'll do this after the review is done.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> /Mikael
>>
>>