RFR: 8334167: Test java/lang/instrument/NativeMethodPrefixApp.java timed out [v2]
Jaikiran Pai
jpai at openjdk.org
Mon Jul 15 08:19:26 UTC 2024
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:00:12 GMT, Alan Bateman <alanb at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains five additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - David's suggestion - remove cosmetic/style changes
>> - no need to timeout=240
>> - include stdio.h in test native library
>> - merge latest from master branch
>> - 8334167: Test java/lang/instrument/NativeMethodPrefixApp.java timed out
>
> test/jdk/java/lang/instrument/NativeMethodPrefixApp.java line 44:
>
>> 42: * @comment The test uses asmlib/Instrumentor.java which relies on ClassFile API PreviewFeature.
>> 43: * @run main/native/timeout=240 NativeMethodPrefixApp roleDriver
>> 44: * @comment The test uses a higher timeout to prevent test timeouts noted in JDK-6528548
>
> Is /timeout=240 (and the comment) needed now. If I read the old issue correctly it was due to use a JDK mounted on a network file system.
In https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19495#discussion_r1625470816 we had considered removing the higher timeout from this test. But then decided to let it stay at that time. I think we don't need it anymore, not even when the test runs with `-Xcomp`. The recent runs in our CI for this test haven't shown the necessity of using this higher timeout. I have updated the PR to remove this. I plan to run additional tests in our CI to be sure that the removal of the timeout doesn't cause unexpected failures.
> test/jdk/java/lang/instrument/libNativeMethodPrefix.c line 24:
>
>> 22: */
>> 23:
>> 24: #include "jni.h"
>
> I assume this needs `#include <stdio.h>`.
Updated the PR to include this.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20154#discussion_r1677457539
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20154#discussion_r1677454337
More information about the serviceability-dev
mailing list