RFR(XXS): 8214105: Invalid bit tests in jtreg

[JC Beyler]

Also +1 for the fix,

If the submit repo is enough for testing, I can do the legwork to test it
and push it once it passes,
Jc

Ps: same for the other one he submitted

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
wrote:

> +1 on the fix.
>
> Simon is neither Committer nor Author so will need a sponsor.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 21/11/2018 4:36 am, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > The fix looks good.
> > Thank you for taking care about it!
> >
> > Questions:
> >    - Do you have an Author status?
> >    - You probably need a sponsor for this, do you?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Serguei
> >
> >
> > On 11/20/18 06:34, Simon Tooke wrote:
> >> While compiling the JDK with GCC 8.1, I discovered an invalid bit test
> >> in
> >>
> test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/StartPhase/AllowedFunctions/libAllowedFunctions.c.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>      (status & JVMTI_CLASS_STATUS_INITIALIZED) == 1
> >>
> >> Which only has a chance of being true if JVMTI_CLASS_STATUS_INITIALIZED
> >> has a value 1 (its actual value is 4, but that's beside the point).
> >> My proposed fix is to test for != 0 instead.  I chose this instead of
> >> testing for equality to JVMTI_CLASS_STATUS_INITIALIZED purely for
> >> cosmetic reasons.
> >>
> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214105
> >> webrev:
> >>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/stooke/JDK-8214105/01/webrev/
> >>
> >>
> >> Please let me know what you think.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Simon
> >>
> >>
> >
>


-- 

Thanks,
Jc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20181120/9726acd8/attachment.html>