RFR(S): 8164737 - Remove Unsafe dependency from ProcessTools

[David Holmes]

On 25/08/2016 9:01 PM, Christian Tornqvist wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> Okay, but I don't see any changes to any @modules for tests that use
>> ProcessTools but not getUnsafe - are there none at present?
 >
> No, I'm not cleaning up the @modules as part of this change, there are about
> 1100 @modules java.base/jdk.internal.misc , more than 90% of these are not
> needed. I believe a lot of the @modules tags in our tests are unnecessary at
> this point.

Ok.

>> Aside: if we defined a jdk.test module would that allows us to handle
>> transitive dependencies in that module definition instead of in the
>> individual tests?
> Not sure what support jtreg has for creating modules at this point

Me neither, but perhaps something to consider if it will ease the burden 
on the tests. It really seems wrong to me that transitive dependencies 
leak through to the individual tests.

Thanks,
David

> Thanks,
> Christian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:56 PM
> To: Christian Tornqvist <christian.tornqvist at oracle.com>;
> hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: RFR(S): 8164737 - Remove Unsafe dependency from ProcessTools
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> On 25/08/2016 4:31 AM, Christian Tornqvist wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Please review this small change that removes the unnecessary
>> dependency on Unsafe from ProcessTools. Jdk.test.lib.ProcessTools use
>> some methods from jdk.test.lib.Utils which has the getUnsafe() method,
>> all tests that use ProcessTools needed to have the @modules
>> java.base/jdk.internal.misc even if they don't use Unsafe.
>>
>> This change moves getUnsafe() into a new class:
>> jdk.test.lib.unsafe.UnsafeHelper and updates the few existing tests
>> that use Unsafe to use this class instead.
>
> Okay, but I don't see any changes to any @modules for tests that use
> ProcessTools but not getUnsafe - are there none at present?
>
> Aside: if we defined a jdk.test module would that allows us to handle
> transitive dependencies in that module definition instead of in the
> individual tests?
>
> Thanks,
> David
> -----
>
>>
>>
>> Webrev:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ctornqvi/webrev/8164737/webrev.00/
>>
>>
>>
>> Bug:
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164737
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>