RFR(s): 8151283: Implement setting jtreg @requires property vm.isG1Supported.

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi Dmitry,

On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 14:53 +0300, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
> Igor, Thomas
> 
> Thanks for the comments:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8151283/webrev.03/
> 
> Because the change is small, I do not publish the diff between
> version.
> 

  could you comment on what you changed?

> Thanks,
> Dima
> 
> On 21.06.2016 13:34, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 00:29 +0300, Dmitry Fazunenko wrote:
> > > 
> > > Igor,
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot for the review!
> > > 
> > > On 20.06.2016 23:35, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Dima,
> > > > 
> > > > the fix looks good to me, thanks for implementing that. I have
> > > > a
> > > > question about -Xbootclasspath/a:bootClasses, is it required? I
> > > > thought classes from requires.extraPropDefns.bootlibs will be
> > > > added
> > > > to BCP by jtreg.
> > >   
> > > Yes, it's required. We might decided for example to use
> > > -Xbootclasspath/p:  instead.
> > > bootClasses - is the name of the local folder (under scratch dir)
> > > where  classes from the 'requires.extraPropDefns.bootlibs' will
> > > be
> > > compiled to.
> > > 
> > > And I haven't mentioned, that I introduced a field, which is
> > > currently unused:
> > > 
> > >        private static final WhiteBox WB = WhiteBox.getWhiteBox();
> > > 
> > > This is for the simplification of use in the future.
> >    thanks for clarifying this - I asked myselves for the reason of
> > that
> > option too.
> > 
> > I would prefer to have unused code in the change at hand unless
> > unavoidable.

... and I forgot a "not" here.

I would prefer to not have completely unused code added to a change. If
it is required for some further change, there should be no problem
adding it there.

Thanks,
  Thomas