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

[Joe Darcy]

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.

-Joe