RFR: TestFullGCCount still not quite right

[Roman Kennke]

> On 11/30/18 4:46 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>> On 11/30/18 4:20 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>>>> Oh man. Yes, makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> So in a sense, we went full-circle because it means flag!=false would
>>>> cover it because it's not the same as flag==true. Right?
>>>
>>> Yep, should just go back to original form:
>>>
>>>   * @requires !(vm.gc == "Shenandoah"    &
>>> vm.opt.ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent != false)
>>
>> Yeah. Maybe put comments there. This has been a mind-bending confusing
>> exercice.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> diff -r 02ceca8573e0 test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/TestFullGCCount.java
> --- a/test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/TestFullGCCount.java        Fri Nov 30
> 18:58:47 2018 +0100
> +++ b/test/hotspot/jtreg/gc/TestFullGCCount.java        Sat Dec 01
> 19:21:51 2018 -0500
> @@ -26,7 +26,8 @@
>   * @bug 7072527
>   * @summary CMS: JMM GC counters overcount in some cases
>   * @requires !(vm.gc == "ConcMarkSweep" &
> vm.opt.ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent == true)
> - * @requires !(vm.gc == "Shenandoah"    &
> vm.opt.ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent == true)
> + * @comment Shenandoah has "ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent" on by default
> + * @requires !(vm.gc == "Shenandoah"    &
> vm.opt.ExplicitGCInvokesConcurrent != false)
>   * @modules java.management
>   * @run main/othervm -Xlog:gc TestFullGCCount
>   */
> 

Fine by me.

Thanks,
Roman