[Fwd: SDK Test Fixes Batch for 2010.07 (6941287, 6962804, 6964018)]

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

Thanks Joe! I have a test JPRT job in the hotspot-west queue. Once
I'm sure the results look good I'll proceed from there...

Dan


On 7/22/2010 5:46 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Hi Dan.
>
> The fixes you've proposed are approved to be backported to OpenJDK 6.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
> Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> I think you might want these three test fixes for OpenJDK6. I've
>> already taken a shot at porting from OpenJDK7 to OpenJDK6 and I
>> did run into two minor sets of differences:
>>
>> - JDK7 has the following changeset where I disabled the tests
>>  for JDK7-B102:
>>
>>  changeset:   2528:ddf825161d2d
>>  parent:      2526:bb0b32ffefe9
>>  user:        dcubed
>>  date:        Mon Jul 12 14:19:44 2010 -0700
>>  summary:     6968401: 3/3 disable tests added by 6942989 until 
>> 6964018 is fixed
>>
>>  Extra diffs showed up because the JDK7 version of 6964018 shows
>>  the tests being re-enabled. OpenJDK6 doesn't have these diffs
>>  because it doesn't have (and doesn't need) 6968401.
>>
>> - JDK7 has the following changeset were Kelly did some Cygwin fixes:
>>
>>  changeset:   2046:6f2a5912f5be
>>  user:        ohair
>>  date:        Mon Jan 04 15:56:42 2010 -0800
>>  summary:     6911104: Tests do not work with CYGWIN: tools, 
>> sun/tools, and com/sun/tools
>>
>>  Extra diffs showed up because my changes touched similar areas in
>>  two files. So in a sense, part of 6911104 will be fixed in OpenJDK6
>>  because of my fix for 6964018.
>>
>> Please let me know if it is okay to push these fixes.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     SDK Test Fixes Batch for 2010.07 (6941287, 6962804, 
>> 6964018)
>> Date:     Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:35:17 -0600
>> From:     Daniel D. Daugherty <daniel.daugherty at oracle.com>
>> Reply-To:     daniel.daugherty at oracle.com
>> To:     serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net 
>> <serviceability-dev at openjdk.java.net>, 
>> hotspot-runtime-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have fixes for three different test bugs ready to go for OpenJDK7.
>> I've run these tests manually on Linux, Solaris SPARC, Solaris X86
>> and WinXP/Cygwin. I've run these tests through JPRT several times to
>> make sure they are stable (which also covers WinXP/MKS). I've been
>> running select tests from this set in loops for 12-24 hours on Linux,
>> Solaris X86 and WinXP/Cygwin to make sure they don't hiccup.
>>
>> This first fix I've had for a while and it has been used in my personal
>> baseline testing for the last several JDK7 promotions:
>>
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6941287-webrev/0/
>>
>> Yes, it could be refactored to use some of the newer logic that I added
>> in the fix for 6964018, but that's a task that should be applied to all
>> the test/sun/tools/* tests.
>>
>> This second fix was intended to add diagnostic information for tracking
>> down some of the strange intermittent failures on Windows:
>>
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6962804-webrev/0/
>>
>> However, the fix seems to have solved the intermittent failures on
>> Windows problem. I haven't seen these failures reproduce in my personal
>> baseline testing on the last several JDK7 promotions and a stress loop
>> using JDK7-B98 bits hasn't reproduced the failures either. I suspect
>> that my refactoring of the logic that handles a missing NL at the end
>> of a file has fixed this problem. The scaffold no longer creates a
>> temporary file every time a test runs; it is only created when needed
>> to solve the missing NL problem.
>>
>> The third fix gets my recent Logger WeakReference leak tests back into
>> the available test mix:
>>
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6964018-webrev/0/
>>
>> This fix refactors and enhances some of the test infrastructure in
>> test/sun/tools/common/* and changes the new Logger WeakReference leak
>> tests to use that infrastructure. Other tests in test/sun/tools/*
>> also need minor tweaks to fit into the new infrastructure.
>>
>> Thanks, in advance, for any reviews.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>