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

[Mikael Gerdin]

Vladimir,

On 2013-02-06 17:30, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Mikael,
>
> I like that all WB functionality is moved to test directory.
>
> You missed Copyright header in all new files.

Thanks for the reminder, I'm not used to creating new files :)

>
> Could you rename ClassFileDumper to ClassFileInstaller? It will be more
> clear what it does.

Done. Updated webrev at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgerdin/8006753/webrev.1/

/Mikael

>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 2/4/13 5:59 AM, 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