RFR(M): 8196786: [PPC64+s390] ConstantDynamic support

[Paul Sandoz]

Test changes look good.

Paul.

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:04 AM, Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've uploaded a rebased webrev after the aarch64 change was pushed:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8196786_ppc64_s390_condy/webrev.01/
> 
> I'm using @requires os.arch != “sparc", now.
> Please review.
> 
> Best regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Sandoz [mailto:paul.sandoz at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Montag, 5. Februar 2018 21:22
> To: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>
> Cc: hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net; Dmitry Samersoff <dmitry.samersoff at bell-sw.com>
> Subject: Re: RFR(M): 8196786: [PPC64+s390] ConstantDynamic support
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> thank you very much for pointing me to these os.arch checks.
>> I've added them to the webrev (in place update).
>> 
>> Unfortunately, they will cause merge conflicts with the aarch64 change.
>> Actually, I'd have preferred failing jtreg tests over exclusions by such checks, but that's another topic.
>> 
> 
> Yes, a fair point though. We did not want the test failures cause noise for SPARC but i guess different CPU platforms might have different test policies in this regard.
> 
> Hmm... it seems the following incantation might work:
> 
>  * @requires os.arch != “sparc"
> 
> if someone else can confirm that is sufficient to avoid execution on SPARC platforms then perhaps Dmitry can update his patch and then there is no conflict.
> 
> Otherwise i am sure some polite “you go first, no you first” arrangement can be reached :-) 
> 
> Paul.