Test Backports

[Andrew John Hughes]

On 7 April 2010 00:25, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/10 01:27 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> On 6 April 2010 01:43, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/31/10 02:41 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> On 31 March 2010 20:09, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
> On 29 March 2010 20:52, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
> There are a set of bidi and math tests:
>
> changeset:   817:8ea49fa4c2f7
> user:        peytoia
> date:        Fri Oct 17 13:34:03 2008 +0900
> summary:     6759521: Move Bidi test programs from closed to open.
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/8ea49fa4c2f7
>
>
>
>
> I approve the bidi tests going back; please verify they pass first though
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> Passed and pushed;
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/e1549056d958
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> changeset:   809:f3ad2ee4600b
> user:        darcy
> date:        Mon Jan 26 19:49:26 2009 -0800
> description:
> 6601457: Move wrapper class tests from closed to open
> 6601458: Move java.math tests from closed to open
> 6740185: Move java/lang/annotations tests to open
> 6759433: Move Math and StrictMath regression tests from closed to open
> Summary: Move some more regression tests to the open
> Reviewed-by: jjg
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/rev/f3ad2ee4600b
>
> that were opened up in OpenJDK7.  Ok to backport these to 6?
>
>
>
>
> However, I deny these other tests being backported since they have long
> been
> in OpenJDK 6 :-)
>
>
>
>
> Doh!  Looks like they were still lurking around in the IcedTea tree
> but no longer being applied.
>
> I found a bunch of others too:
>
> comparing with ssh://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6-gate/jdk
> searching for changes
> changeset:   308:d5dc9130bdb0
> user:        volk
> date:        Sun Apr 13 23:41:40 2008 +0400
> summary:     6686273: Some AWT reg. tests should be moved to open
> repository (for CRs 6444769, 6480547, and 6560348)
>
> changeset:   309:fa6cfc27b519
> user:        ant
> date:        Wed Mar 26 16:20:01 2008 +0300
> summary:     6680135: A number of test/closed/java/awt/Focus/* tests
> should be opened
>
> changeset:   310:285a274f844a
> user:        sherman
> date:        Mon Jun 30 14:06:34 2008 -0700
> summary:     6675856: Open charset tests
>
> changeset:   311:47f907e9c9b3
> user:        malenkov
> date:        Thu Jun 26 15:11:04 2008 +0400
> summary:     6718964: Swing border tests should be open source
>
> changeset:   312:a6d7e84e31e1
> user:        malenkov
> date:        Thu Jun 26 15:39:12 2008 +0400
> summary:     6718965: Swing color chooser tests should be open source
>
> changeset:   313:62168e9450f9
> user:        sherman
> date:        Thu Aug 13 15:01:18 2009 -0700
> summary:     6676423: (prefs) Opensource unit/regression tests for
> java.util.prefs
>
> changeset:   314:83980d94b138
> tag:         tip
> user:        sherman
> date:        Wed Jan 27 19:39:55 2010 -0800
> summary:     6920732: opensource test/java/nio/charset
>
> Ok to backport?  The majority pass, with the failures being in the AWT
> ones (may be my setup, as some of the existing ones fail too) and
> prefs (I think it's trying to acquire a lock on a NFS mount).
>
>
>
> Yes in principle, but let me dig into the particular changes a bit to
> double-check they're applicable to and appropriate for OpenJDK 6.
>
>
>
> Ok, the comments suggested to me they were forwardports from the
> proprietary tree but good to check.
>
>
> I've looked over each of these patches, and they all seem applicable to
> OpenJDK 6 so I approve all of them going back.
>
> (It is feasible a patch would be applicable to a portion of the proprietary
> JDK 7, but not applicable to the corresponding portion of OpenJDK 6.)
>
>
>
> Thanks for checking.  Obviously you're one of the few who can do so
> for the proprietary JDKs.
>
> Pushed:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2010-April/001427.html
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On my queue, I have four more Zero patches and a set of backports I'd
> like in (making the source/target explicit as we did in 7 already, and
> Kelly's ant 1.8 patch).  Everything else can wait until b20
>
>
>
> Here's the backport:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/6873059/webrev.01/jdk6.patch
>
> It's a replica of 6873059 as applied to the HotSpot, JDK and CORBA
> trees in OpenJDK7, the only difference being that we use 5 instead of
> 6 as the bootstrap version for OpenJDK6.  Ok to push?  Should I use
> the same bug ID or do you want to allocate a fresh one?
>
>
> Using the same bug id is fine, but I'd like Kelly to sanity check it before
> it goes back.
>

Ok, waiting for Kelly's response.

> On another note, there is now some code requiring source level 6 in
> OpenJDK6 (due to use of the @Override annotation on interfaces):
>
>  src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/synth/SynthComboBoxUI.java
>  src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/synth/SynthLookAndFeel.java
>  src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/synth/SynthTreeUI.java
>  src/share/classes/sun/security/provider/certpath/OCSPResponse.java
>  src/share/classes/sun/swing/plaf/synth/SynthFileChooserUIImpl.java
>
>
> There is an overly-long story behind -source 5 vs. -source 6 and @Override.
> The short answer is that javac in JDK 6 unconditionally applies the more
> liberal (and more useful) semantics for @Override.  For the JDK sources, a
> compiler that does the same should be used.
>

Exactly.  I know ecj throws it out for 5 but not for 6 and thus
building using ecj (our method for bootstrapping) falls foul of the
classes above.  I'm not sure if javac is allowing them through because
its version of 1.5 allows it or it is simply defaulting to 6 because
nothing else is specified.  I had a quick look but the version is
currently set in more than one place, so I think this needs a more
in-depth review and I'd prefer it waits until b20 to be on the safe
side.

> So we should look at bumping the generated code version to 6 (it still
> seems to be 5 even though this is OpenJDK6).  I'd prefer to leave that
> until b20 though.
>
> I see Kelly's patch went in.  It would be nice to also backport
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/hotspot/rev/5fdbe2cdf565 (a minor
> warning fix) so IcedTea6's OpenJDK backport set is empty again.
>
>
> I approve the warning fix being backported.
>

Done: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/hotspot/rev/6ee696377676

The first of the four Zero backports is 6903453: Zero build on ARM and IA-64.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/6903453/webrev.01/

It adds a few build conditionals for building on arm and ia64 platforms.

Ok to push?

> -Joe
>
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8