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

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi Severin

thanks for looking into this.

> > Firstly, the change did not apply exactly cleanly. I had to make modifications to
> >
> test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/CompressedOops/CompressedClassPointers.java.
>
> 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?

Yes, because it can already be found in the current version of the file:
line 28: 28  * @requires vm.bits == 64 & vm.opt.final.UseCompressedOops == true

> > 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.j
> ava
> > 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.

Actually, I scanned the communication on jdk-updates-dev where SkippedException was mentioned - this was the cause for some manual backport adaptions. I believe this backport is the right place to "rectify" these modified backports.

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

Well, the SkippedException there was introduced with JDK-8220672 which you seem about to backport. So I guess you'll do the backport after I pushed this one and you should have one less reject to resolve ��

> 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.

Great. So, good to push after my clarifications?

Cheers
Christoph