RFR (trivial) 8208074: [TESTBUG] vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/RedefineClasses/StressRedefineWithoutBytecodeCorruption/TestDescription.java failed with NullPointerException

[Chris Plummer]

On 7/31/18 5:06 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
>
> On 7/31/18 3:29 AM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Good catch.
>> It is possible that this webrev does not fix the JDK-8202896.
>> The JDK-8202896 is about timeouts which are normally intermittent (is 
>> it right?).
>>
>> There are two options here:
>>   A: close 8202896 as a dup of 8208074
>>   B: keep the test problem listed and labeled with 8202896
>>
>> Let's wait for Coleen's answer.
>
> I closed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8206076 (timeouts 
> with -Xcomp)
>  as a duplicate of
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203820 (where I took 
> InMemoryCompiler out of the threads)
> because that's where the attempted fix was.
>
> I think
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202896 (getting Too many 
> open files intermittently)
> should be closed as a duplicate too because it's the same root cause.
>
> And this one:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208074 (broken fix)
> fixes my fix and will remove the test from the ProblemList.txt.
>
> I believe it should be removed fromt he problem list because I don't 
> think it will time out or intermittently fail again for the same 
> reason.  If it times out or fails for a different reason, we should 
> file a whole new bug, with that specific analysis.
>
> Thanks,
> Coleen

Hi Coleen,

That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for cleaning up the bug situation.

Chris
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Serguei
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/18 00:16, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>> Sorry, I thought this had been pushed already, but it hasn't. But it 
>>> still looks like JDK-8202896 should be closed as a dup, and it's 
>>> unclear to me if JDK-8206076 has been fixed and this test can be 
>>> removed from the problem list.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On 7/30/18 6:34 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>>
>>>> Now that this had been pushed, I assume JDK-8202896 should be 
>>>> closed as a dup. And what about JDK-8206076? Is it fixed by this 
>>>> change also?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On 7/30/18 1:49 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> Summary: fixed refactoring caused by JDK-8203820
>>>>>
>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8208074.01/webrev
>>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208074
>>>>>
>>>>> Ran the test in mach5 on all Oracle supported platforms. Also took 
>>>>> the test out of ProblemList.txt because JDK-8203820 fixes 
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202896.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Coleen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>