Review Request: 8006506: Add test for redefining methods in backtraces to java/lang/instrument tests

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

On 2/1/13 1:57 AM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
> On 2013-02-01 10:22, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>> Nice test!
>> It looks good.
> Thanks for reviewing!
>>
>> As the original bug and the test are non-trivial, it'd make sense to 
>> add a comment to
>> the class RedefineMethodInBacktraceApp and explain a little bit what 
>> the test is doing,
>> and what behavior is expected.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8006506/webrev.04/
>
> Tell me if you think this is good enough.

It is good.

Nit: it'd be enough if it is more specific. :)
This method is a key point:

   90     private static void touchRedefinedMethodInBacktrace(Throwable throwable) {
   91         throwable.getStackTrace();
   92     }

Is it true that the test expects the getStackTrace() does not crash nor
throw an exception which would happen if the old/obsolete method is gc'ed?


Thanks,
Serguei


>
> thanks,
> StefanK
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sergueri
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/13 12:13 AM, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8006506/webrev.03/
>>>
>>> 1) Reverted the ProblemList change, since the fix has already 
>>> propagaged to jdk8/tl
>>> 2) Renamed do_redefine -> doRedefine
>>> 3) Updated the .sh file with the bug number of the original CR 
>>> instead of the test CR.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> StefanK
>>>
>>> On 2013-01-22 14:11, Stefan Karlsson wrote:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stefank/8006506/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> This test provokes the JVM crash described in bug: JDK-7174978.
>>>>
>>>> I intend to push this to:
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> StefanK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20130201/50e5b5f9/attachment.html