need a code review for a quick test fix (6971847)

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 7/23/2010 10:38 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> On 7/24/2010 1:14 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> The 'histo:live' check gives me a helpful usage message rather
>>>> than a vague one. I would prefer to keep the check. Would you
>>>> be okay with the fix as is?
>>> I don't have a strong objection to the proposed change but the check 
>>> seems to be only useful to catch the case where someone is running 
>>> these jdk6 or jdk7 tests on jdk5. It was useful that it caught the 
>>> problem with the usage message but I think the simplest fix is to 
>>> just remove lines 55 and 58-65 from both tests.
>>
>> No argument about simpler.
>>
>> Yes, JDK5 is exactly what I'm worried about. Since the original
>> bug (6942989) is escalated and the original problem goes all the
>> way back to JDK1.4.0, I expect this fix to be backported to
>> earlier releases. Rather than have a vague failure buried in
>> the <test>.jmap file, I would prefer a more clear message that
>> says why the test isn't working.
>>
>
> If you'd like to keep the test code the same across releases, the 
> current fix is fine for OpenJDK 6.  Otherwise, Alan's suggestion could 
> be followed.

Yes, I would prefer that the test code be the same across
releases. Thanks for approval for OpenJDK6.

Dan