RFR: 7903671: jcstress: Update buffer tests for JDK-8318966 [v2]

[Jiří Vaněk]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:09:37 GMT, Jiří Vaněk <jvanek at openjdk.org> wrote:

> > Finally have time to look at this.
> > No, we are not going to hard-code test names in generic harness code. The common way to "skip" the test that are incompatible with some JDKs is to record them as "soft errors", which make them skipped. This is what [CODETOOLS-7903695](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/CODETOOLS-7903695) did, and it is supposed to be enough.
> 
> Ok. you are right. They are just api-mishmash, so soft errors, so ignored. Not sure when I run it last so it was so intrusive it led me to create and elaborate on CODETOOLS-7903671. That sounds like this PR is indeed no go.

They ar eno longer apimishmases:

  o.o.j.t.accessAtomic.varHandles.byteArray.big.acqrel.CharTest 		ERROR 			Error while running the test
  o.o.j.t.accessAtomic.varHandles.byteArray.big.acqrel.DoubleTest 		ERROR 			Error while running the test
....
split
    actor1: Interpreter
    actor2: Interpreter
    actor1: package group 0, core group 0
    actor2: package group 1, core group 1
[-Djcstress.console.printIntervalMs=3600000}]
	ERROR
Check test failed
java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError
	at org.openjdk.jcstress.tests.accessAtomic.varHandles.byteArray.big.acqrel.CharTest_jcstress.jcstress_sanityCheck_API(CharTest_jcstress.java:80)
	at org.openjdk.jcstress.tests.accessAtomic.varHandles.byteArray.big.acqrel.CharTest_jcstress.sanityCheck(CharTest_jcstress.java:29)
	at org.openjdk.jcstress.infra.runners.Runner.run(Runner.java:64)
	at org.openjdk.jcstress.ForkedMain.main(ForkedMain.java:79)
Caused by: java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Unit size unsupported for non-direct buffers: 8
	at java.base/java.nio.ByteBuffer.alignmentOffset(ByteBuffer.java:2295)
	at org.openjdk.jcstress.tests.accessAtomic.varHandles.byteArray.big.acqrel.CharTest.(CharTest.java:47)
	... 4 more

Not sure whats wrong here, and why I had ever seen api-mishmash.... Can not see it with jdk25

> 
> I'm tempted to add the `alignment(1)` variants so jdk24+ do not suffer the lack of coverage. What is your advice here?

Will go by this way now.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jcstress/pull/159#issuecomment-3581308096