RFR (M) : JDK-8016029 : test runtime/6878713/Test6878713.sh failed

[Mikhailo Seledtsov]

Hi Leonid,

  Thank you for pointing out the related bug. I have linked the bugs as 
"relates to", and will set the other bug as fixed once the original bug 
moves to a fixed state.
As for running out of memory, this is helped by specifying 
"MallocMaxTestWords" in the test.

Misha


On 7/17/2013 11:53 AM, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
> Mikhailo
>
> Could you please that your changes fix also
>   JDK-7037122 runtime/6878713/Test6878713.sh is written incorrectly
> and close it after push.
>
> Can test really run out of native memory on low-end hosts?
>
> Leonid
>
> On 07/17/2013 12:33 AM, Mikhailo Seledtsov wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>  Please review this test fix. The change is a fix for the original 
>> bug, plus an update to the test condition to reflect new JVM behavior 
>> and a rewrite of an sh script test in Java.
>>
>> JBS: https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8016029
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mseledtsov/6878713/webrev.00/ 
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emseledtsov/6878713/webrev.00/>
>>
>> Here are a few notes:
>> - the original test used a hand-crafted class file written in java 
>> assembly, designed to cause a specific OOM condition during class 
>> file parsing. Since jar/class files are not recommended in the open 
>> source repository, I have used static byte array's to generate this 
>> class file. This is not an ideal solution, it would be better to 
>> create a Java Assembly source; however currently JTREG does not 
>> support Java Assembly compilation, hence this work-around.
>>
>> - the original behavior of the VM in this test case has changed, and 
>> the expected error message has changed as well. There is an extensive 
>> amount of information about this in the original bug, posted by Dan. 
>> The change was introduced in change-set: 4876:f75faf51e8c4 by Harold. 
>> Checking for the old expected messages has been removed from the 
>> test. This change is for JDK8 and forward, and no back-ports planned.
>>
>> - the flag -XX:+IgnoreUnrecognizedVMOptions has been removed to avoid 
>> masking a potential problem. If VM drops support for any of XX flags 
>> used in this test, it is better to know about it right away rather 
>> than mask it and silently pass/ignore.
>>
>> - the flag -XX:+PrintCommandLineFlags has been removed; if this 
>> information is desired, IMO it should be triggered either by a 
>> verbose mode of JTREG tools, or by hand, not by individual test(s).
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Misha
>
>