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

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

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.

Dan