RFR: 8011397: JTREG needs to copy additional WhiteBox class file to JTwork/scratch/sun/hotspot
Andrey Zakharov
andrey.x.zakharov at oracle.com
Thu Aug 21 17:05:22 UTC 2014
Hi, Christian.
Sure. Let me quote my own email from this thread:
> Hi, all
> So issue is that when tests with WhiteBox API has been invoked with
> -Xverify:all it fails with Exception java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> sun/hotspot/WhiteBox$WhiteBoxPermission
> Solutions that are observed:
> 1. Copy WhiteBoxPermission with WhiteBox. But
> >> Perhaps this is a good time to get rid of ClassFileInstaller
> altogether?
>
> 2. Using bootclasspath to hook pre-built whitebox (due @library
> /testlibrary/whitebox) . Some tests has @run main/othervm, some uses
> ProcessBuilder.
> - main/othervm/bootclasspath adds ${test.src} and ${test.classes}to
> options.
> - With ProcessBuilder we can just add ${test.classes}
> Question here is, can it broke some tests ? While testing this, I
> found only https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046231, others
> looks fine.
>
> 3. Make ClassFileInstaller deal with inner classes like that:
> diff -r 6ed24aedeef0 -r c01651363ba8
> test/testlibrary/ClassFileInstaller.java
> --- a/test/testlibrary/ClassFileInstaller.java Thu Jun 05 19:02:56
> 2014 +0400
> +++ b/test/testlibrary/ClassFileInstaller.java Fri Jun 06 18:18:11
> 2014 +0400
> @@ -50,6 +50,16 @@
> }
> // Create the class file
> Files.copy(is, p, StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING);
> +
> + for (Class<?> cls :
> Class.forName(arg).getDeclaredClasses()) {
> + //if (!Modifier.isStatic(cls.getModifiers())) {
> + String pathNameSub =
> cls.getCanonicalName().replace('.', '/').concat(".class");
> + Path pathSub = Paths.get(pathNameSub);
> + InputStream streamSub =
> cl.getResourceAsStream(pathNameSub);
> + Files.copy(streamSub, pathSub,
> StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING);
> + //}
> + }
> +
> }
> }
> }
>
> Works fine for ordinary classes, but fails for WhiteBox due
> Class.forName initiate Class. WhiteBox has "static" section, and
> initialization fails as it cannot bind to native methods
> "registerNatives" and so on.
>
>
> So, lets return to first one option? Just add everywhere
> * @run main ClassFileInstaller sun.hotspot.WhiteBox
> + * @run main ClassFileInstaller sun.hotspot.WhiteBox$WhiteBoxPermission
>
> Thanks.
>
If you have any suggestions, please share it.
Thanks.
On 21.08.2014 19:58, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> Sorry I missed this review but I don’t think that’s a good way to handle this issue; this just doesn’t scale. What if someone adds another inner-class to WhiteBox? Do we have to update all tests again?
>
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 4:42 AM, Mikael Gerdin <mikael.gerdin at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 11 August 2014 17.55.53 Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>> Hi, all
>>> Here is updated patch with recent added tests:
>>>
>>> * ./test/compiler/classUnloading/methodUnloading/TestMethodUnloading.java
>>> * ./test/gc/class_unloading/TestCMSClassUnloadingEnabledHWM.java
>>> * ./test/gc/class_unloading/TestG1ClassUnloadingHWM.java
>>>
>>> webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/azakharov/8011397/webrev.04/
>> Ok,
>>
>> /Mikael
>>
>>> Bug:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011397
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On 11.08.2014 15:28, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>> Hi, Igor.
>>>> I have another counts with applied patch, but it looks like couple of
>>>> tests has beed added since last check.
>>>>
>>>> $ grep -Rl --exclude-dir=testlibrary
>>>> "sun.hotspot.WhiteBox\$WhiteBoxPermission" ./test/| wc -l
>>>> 133
>>>>
>>>> $ grep -Rl --exclude-dir=testlibrary "sun.hotspot.WhiteBox" ./test/|
>>>> wc -l
>>>> 142
>>>>
>>>> Will update patch soon.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> On 11.08.2014 15:18, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>
>>>>> could you please look at and fix other tests which use whitebox?
>>>>>
>>>>> $ grep -Rl --exclude-dir=testlibrary "sun.hotspot.WhiteBox" ./test |
>>>>> wc -l
>>>>> 139
>>>>> $ grep -Rl --exclude-dir=testlibrary
>>>>> "sun.hotspot.WhiteBox\$WhiteBoxPermission" ./test/ | wc -l
>>>>> 10
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Igor
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/11/2014 03:09 PM, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible to review this below
>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/azakharov/8011397/webrev.03/
>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011397
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28.07.2014 18:51, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, all.
>>>>>>> I've prepared rechecked and verified fix for subject.
>>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/azakharov/8011397/webrev.03/
>>>>>>> Bug:
>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011397
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've grep'ed workspace by sun.hotspot.WhiteBox and fixed every file.
>>>>>>> Also I've updated copyright.
>>>>>>> Testing was done by aurora batch 538304.ute.hs_jtreg.accept.full
>>>>>>> It looks good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16.07.2014 15:13, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16.07.2014 14:39, Erik Helin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 15 July 2014 19:26:34 PM Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Erik, Bengt. Could you, please, review this too.
>>>>>>>>> Andrey, why did you only update a couple of tests to also copy
>>>>>>>>> sun.hotspot.WhiteBox$WhiteBoxPermission? You updated 14 tests,
>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>> still 116 tests using sun.hotspot.WhiteBox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why doesn't these 116 tests have to be updated?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Erik
>>>>>>>> Thanks Erik. Actually this first one patch 8011397.WhiteBoxPermission
>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/20274/8011397.WhiteBo
>>>>>>>> xPermission>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is correct. I will rework it and upload to webrev space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15.07.2014 17:58, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday 07 July 2014 20.48.21 Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi ,all
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael, can you please review it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I was on vacation last week.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/azakharov/8011397/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>>> Looks ok for now. We should consider revisiting this by either
>>>>>>>>>>> switching
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> @run main/bootclasspath
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> deleting the WhiteboxPermission nested class and using some
>>>>>>>>>>> other way for
>>>>>>>>>>> permission checks (if they are at all needed).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Mikael
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.06.2014 19:08, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in progress of previous email -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/azakharov/8011397/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16.06.2014 19:57, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So issue is that when tests with WhiteBox API has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoked with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Xverify:all it fails with Exception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sun/hotspot/WhiteBox$WhiteBoxPermission
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solutions that are observed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Copy WhiteBoxPermission with WhiteBox. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this is a good time to get rid of ClassFileInstaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Using bootclasspath to hook pre-built whitebox (due @library
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /testlibrary/whitebox) . Some tests has @run main/othervm,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessBuilder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - main/othervm/bootclasspath adds ${test.src} and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ${test.classes}to options.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - With ProcessBuilder we can just add ${test.classes}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Question here is, can it broke some tests ? While testing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found onlyhttps://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046231,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Make ClassFileInstaller deal with inner classes like that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff -r 6ed24aedeef0 -r c01651363ba8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/testlibrary/ClassFileInstaller.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/test/testlibrary/ClassFileInstaller.java Thu Jun 05
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19:02:56
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 +0400
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/test/testlibrary/ClassFileInstaller.java Fri Jun 06
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:18:11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 +0400
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -50,6 +50,16 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Create the class file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Files.copy(is, p,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + for (Class<?> cls :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Class.forName(arg).getDeclaredClasses()) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + //if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (!Modifier.isStatic(cls.getModifiers())) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + String pathNameSub =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cls.getCanonicalName().replace('.', '/').concat(".class");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Path pathSub = Paths.get(pathNameSub);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + InputStream streamSub =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cl.getResourceAsStream(pathNameSub);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Files.copy(streamSub, pathSub,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StandardCopyOption.REPLACE_EXISTING);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + //}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Works fine for ordinary classes, but fails for WhiteBox due
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Class.forName initiate Class. WhiteBox has "static" section,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialization fails as it cannot bind to native methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "registerNatives" and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, lets return to first one option? Just add everywhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @run main ClassFileInstaller sun.hotspot.WhiteBox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @run main ClassFileInstaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sun.hotspot.WhiteBox$WhiteBoxPermission
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10.06.2014 19:43, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like this idea, since it completely changes the tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'run/othervm/bootclasspath' adds all paths from CP to BCP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests whose main idea was testing WB methods themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sanity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler/whitebox, ...) don't check that it's possible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use WB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the application isn't in BCP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2014 06:59 PM, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have tested my changes on major platforms and found one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug, filed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046231
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, i did another try to make ClassFileInstaller to copy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all inner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes within parent, but this fails for WhiteBox due its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "registerNatives" dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please, review suggested changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - replace ClassFileInstaller and run/othervm with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "run/othervm/bootclasspath".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bootclasspath parameter for othervm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds-Xbootclasspath/a:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option with ${test.src} and ${test.classes}according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/jtreg/file/31003a1c46d9/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> src/sha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /classes/com/sun/javatest/regtest/MainAction.java.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this suitable for our needs - give to test compiled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WhiteBox?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - replace explicit -Xbootclasspath option values (".") in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessBuilder invocations to ${test.classes} where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WhiteBox has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fzhinkin/azakharov/8011397/webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011397
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23.05.2014 15:40, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.05.2014 12:47, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. You changed dozen of tests, have you tested your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Locally, aurora on the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Your changes of year in copyright is wrong. it has to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $first_year, [$last_year, ], see Mark's email[1] for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7-dev/2010-May/001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 321.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, fixed. will be uploaded soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/21/2014 07:37 PM, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13.05.2014 14:43, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So here is trivial patch -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removing ClassFileInstaller sun.hotspot.WhiteBox and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main/othervm/bootclasspath
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, some tests are modified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "-Xbootclasspath/a:.",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "-Xbootclasspath/a:" +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.getProperty("test.classes"),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jwilhelm/8011397/webrev.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011397
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09.05.2014 12:13, Mikael Gerdin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday 08 May 2014 19.28.13 Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // cc'ing hotspot-dev instaed of compiler, runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and gc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2014 07:09 PM, Filipp Zhinkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've CC'ed compiler and runtime mailing list,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect test for other components as too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like your solution (but I'm not a reviewer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so treat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as suggestion),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we'll have to write more meta information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is very easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forget to install WhiteBoxPermission if you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some security manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view, it will be better to extend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClassFileInstaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so it will copy not only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a class whose name was passed as an arguments, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of that class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And if someone want copy only specified class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without inner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then some option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be added to ClassFileInstaller to force such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this is a good time to get rid of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClassFileInstaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8009117
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason for its existence is that the WhiteBox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot class path.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can live with having all the test's classes on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we could use the /bootclasspath option in jtreg as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RFE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Mikael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Filipp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2014 04:47 PM, Andrey Zakharov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggesting patch with fixes for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011397
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/20275/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8011397
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/secure/attachment/20274/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8011397
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .W
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hiteBoxPer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mission
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
More information about the hotspot-dev
mailing list