RFR: 8357826: Avoid running some jtreg tests when asan is configured [v2]

[Matthias Baesken]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 08:07:38 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaesken at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> There are a couple of jtreg tests, especially in the HS area, with very special assumptions about memory layout/sizes .
>> Those fail when the address sanitizer is configured ( --enable-asan ).
>> The change adds a way to tag those tests with 'requires' so that they can be avoided easily when running jtreg tests with ASAN enabled.
>> Adjusting the tests for "pleasing" the sanitizer is not always desired (if possible for some tests it can be done later) .
>> While at it, also same is also added for ubsan .
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   TestBreakSignalThreadDump has issues with asan

The test AOTCodeCompressedOopsTest.java has the memory error mentioned above fixed now with recent changes , but shows another issue

runtime/cds/appcds/aotCode/AOTCodeCompressedOopsTest.java
---------------------------------------------------------------
java.lang.RuntimeException: Pattern "narrow_oop_base = 0x(\\d+), narrow_oop_shift = (\\d)" not found in the output
	at AOTCodeCompressedOopsTest$Tester.checkExecution(AOTCodeCompressedOopsTest.java:184)
	at jdk.test.lib.cds.CDSAppTester.executeAndCheck(CDSAppTester.java:221)
	at jdk.test.lib.cds.CDSAppTester.productionRun(CDSAppTester.java:427)
	at jdk.test.lib.cds.CDSAppTester.productionRun(CDSAppTester.java:392)
	at AOTCodeCompressedOopsTest.main(AOTCodeCompressedOopsTest.java:58)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DirectMethodHandleAccessor.invoke(DirectMethodHandleAccessor.java:104)
	at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:565)
	at com.sun.javatest.regtest.agent.MainActionHelper$AgentVMRunnable.run(MainActionHelper.java:335)
	at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:1474)

Maybe we should  ask an AOT expert about this, not sure what that means.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25575#issuecomment-2939805054