[11u] RFR: 8208655: use JTreg skipped status in hotspot tests

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi Christoph,

On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 08:11 +0000, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> as was discussed previously, it seems to be useful for backporting
> new tests and test fixes to make jtreg.SkippedException available in
> JDK11 updates. Hence, please review this backport of JDK-8208655 [1].
>  
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8208655.11u-dev.0/
>  
> Firstly, the change did not apply exactly cleanly. I had to make
> modifications to
> test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/CompressedOops/CompressedClassPointers.jav
> a.

What changes did you have to make to that file? I see that jdk/jdk
patch has:

+ * @requires vm.bits == 64

which seems to be missing from your patch. Intentional?

> Then, I also modified the following 3 tests which already contain
> backports to 11u during which SkippedException was removed. So I
> added back SkippedException there – making the tests resemble what
> they currently look like in jdk/jdk:
> test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/codegen/aes/TestAESMain.java
> test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/codegen/aes/TestCipherBlockChainingEncrypt.java
> test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/intrinsics/base64/TestBase64.java

How did you determine these? I wonder whether it would be more
appropriate to get these updates in a follow-up.

I see that
test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/containers/docker/TestCPUSets.java
should receive a similar treatment too.

FWIW, the diff stat of 7b1ddbafa134 from HEAD doesn't list any of them.
 
> As the original change of 8208655 wasn’t perfect and would cause a
> few test failures if applied alone, I’ll also have to bring in JDK-
> 8208701 [2] and JDK-8208706 [3]. So, once pushing this, I’ll push all
> of these 3 items.

Sounds good.

Thanks,
Severin

> @Severin: you already got reviews for backports of 8220672 and
> 8221710 where you replaced SkippedException. Those aren’t pushed yet.
> So, I’d like to ask you whether you could hold off pushing until
> 8208655 is in and then go for SkippedException. Maybe the fixes even
> apply cleanly then?
>  
> Thanks
> Christoph
>  
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208655
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208701
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208706
>