[11u] RFR: 8249277: TestVerifyIterativeGVN.java is failing with timeout in OpenJDK 11

[Lindenmaier, Goetz]

Hi,

I had thought how to handle this, but decided for a Bug/Enhancement, not
a Downport.

Looking at the bugs in JBS, a downport makes it look good, as it 
expresses that we have fixed the same issue.

But:

It also expresses that we have fixed the same issue the same way.
This we don't know, as we don't see the original fix.

A downport uses the BugID of the downported issue.  This somehow 
expresses it's the very same patch modulo needed adaptions. 
Should I also push my patch with the BugID of the 11.0.9-oracle issue?
Or should I push it with the BugID of the bug I opened (I can transform it 
into a downport issue).

Reviewers: for a downported change the original reviews are available
and valid.  Here, it is not the case.

Assignee: Who should be assignee in the JBS issue?  Usually it’s the author
of the original issue for downports.  . But that would not be correct.
If I add me, it looks as if I violated the rules...

So I'm not sure...

(All taking aside that this change is trivial, and Christian H. reviewed it)

Best regards,
  Goetz.





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:37 AM
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; 'jdk-updates-
> dev at openjdk.java.net' <jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Cc: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com>; Andrew Haley
> <aph at redhat.com>
> Subject: RE: [11u] RFR: 8249277: TestVerifyIterativeGVN.java is failing with
> timeout in OpenJDK 11
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the change looks good to me, too.
> 
> I think, however, it should be submitted as backport of
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248521. While it is not a literal
> backport of the fix for JDK-8248521, since that one is not available obviously
> (as it was done on Oracle's JDK11 release), it though aims to fix the reported
> problem. Having the fix as JBS backport item of JDK-8249277 will make it
> more obvious that the issue was addressed in OpenJDK, too.
> 
> @Severin, aph or others, do you have an opinion here?
> 
> Best regards
> Christoph
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net> On
> > Behalf Of Christian Hagedorn
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 15:31
> > To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com>; Lindenmaier, Goetz
> > <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; 'jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net' <jdk-
> > updates-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Subject: Re: [11u] RFR: 8249277: TestVerifyIterativeGVN.java is failing with
> > timeout in OpenJDK 11
> >
> > Hi Goetz
> >
> > Looks good to me!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Christian
> >
> > On 16.07.20 09:42, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> > > Hi Götz  thanks for adjusting the timeout . Looks good to me !
> > >
> > > Best regards, Matthias
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Lindenmaier, Goetz
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:22 AM
> > >> To: jdk-updates-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > >> Subject: [11u] RFR: 8249277: TestVerifyIterativeGVN.java is failing with
> > >> timeout in OpenJDK 11
> > >>
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> This test times out on mac. I would like to increase the timeout.
> > >> Please review:
> > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr20/8249277-
> > >> TestVerifyIterativeGVN_timeout-jdk11/01/
> > >>
> > >> Oracle did a similar change in the closed repo:
> > >>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248521
> > >> but the change is not visible, so I crafted my own.
> > >>
> > >> New bug, open 11u only:
> > >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248521
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>    Goetz.