RFR: JDK-8251384: [TESTBUG] jvmti tests should not be executed with minimal VM
David Holmes
david.holmes at oracle.com
Fri Aug 28 01:30:08 UTC 2020
Hi Alex,
On 28/08/2020 6:29 am, Alex Menkov wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 08/26/2020 21:49, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 21/08/2020 6:54 am, Alex Menkov wrote:
>>> Hi Igor,
>>>
>>> On 08/20/2020 09:23, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
>>>> HI Alex,
>>>>
>>>> one minor nit: according to usual java coding conventions,
>>>> isJVMTIIncluded should be spelled as isJvmtiIncluded. otherwise the
>>>> fix looks good to me.
>>>
>>> I tried to be consistent with other methods like
>>> isCDSIncludedInVmBuild, isJFRIncludedInVmBuild, isGCSupported,
>>> isGCSelected, etc.
>>
>> Yes - when a name includes an acronym the use of camel-case is a
>> secondary consideration.
>>
>>> Maybe this should be isJVMTIIncludedInVmBuild..
>>
>> Yes that seems better and I would also prefer to see it implemented in
>> the same style as:
>
> Sorry, the fix was pushed several days ago.
Sorry I was away and didn't notice the date. The review still seemed
open as you seemed to be posing a query to Igor on the naming.
> Do you want to change the name to isJVMTIIncludedInVmBuild by follow-up?
I think we should go for consistency in naming for these type of feature
tests, and also consistency in the implementation - as I said this
doesn't need a runtime check at all (though I wonder if the C++ compiler
is smart enough to elide it?).
That said I would have preferred the existing checks to not have
"InVmBuild" in the name as it seems redundant/unnecessary to me. But a
RFE to get consistency here would be good thing IMO.
Thanks,
David
-----
>>
>> WB_ENTRY(jboolean, WB_IsJFRIncludedInVmBuild(JNIEnv* env))
>> #if INCLUDE_JFR
>> return true;
>> #else
>> return false;
>> #endif // INCLUDE_JFR
>> WB_END
>>
>> to avoid implicit booleans and avoid the runtime condition check.
>
> I don't think true/false are correct here. This is jboolean, not bool.
>
> INCLUDE_JVMTI ? JNI_TRUE : JNI_FALSE
> #if INCLUDE_JVMTI
> return JNI_TRUE;
> #else
> return JNI_FALSE;
> #endif
> looks better imo.
>
> --alex
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> -----
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Other tests will be updated in the follow-ups.
>>>> have you already identified all the tests which need this @requires?
>>>> filed bugs/RFEs for them?
>>>
>>> Not yet.
>>> I had problem with running all hotspot tests with minimal build (for
>>> some reason jtreg was not able to complete it), so I decided start
>>> from the tests mentioned in the jira issue and then test
>>> area-by-area, file and fix the tests in batches.
>>>
>>> --alex
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -- Igor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Alex Menkov <alexey.menkov at oracle.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> please review the fix for
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251384
>>>>> webrev:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk16/minimal_jvmti/webrev/
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix introduces new @requires option "vm.jvmti":
>>>>> test/lib/sun/hotspot/WhiteBox.java
>>>>> test/jtreg-ext/requires/VMProps.java
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/prims/whitebox.cpp
>>>>> test/hotspot/jtreg/TEST.ROOT
>>>>>
>>>>> and updates tests in test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti (the
>>>>> only change in all tests is added "@requires vm.jvmti")
>>>>> Other tests will be updated in the follow-ups.
>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list