Hi all,
When there is no `/usr/bin/expect` in system, `throw new SkippedException`
will not make the jvm exit in `@BeforeAll` junit stage, thus this will cause
this testcase run failed. So I make change from `throw new SkippedException` to
`System.exit` to avoid this issue. When use `System.ex
On Sun, 26 May 2024 06:16:44 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/io/IO/IO.java line 64:
>>
>>> 62: expect = Paths.get("/usr/bin/expect"); // os-specific path
>>> 63: if (!Files.exists(expect) || !Files.isExecutable(expect)) {
>>> 64: System.out.print
issue. When use `System.exit`, I think we
> should use `othervm` mode in jtreg.
> Only change the testcase, the risk is low.
>
> Thanks.
SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- delete "static final int JCK_
On Sun, 26 May 2024 07:40:38 GMT, Daniel Jeliński wrote:
> LGTM. I assume you verified it does the right thing.
Thanks for the review and approved. The change has been verified.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19403#issuecomment-2132120584
On Sun, 26 May 2024 02:58:02 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> When there is no `/usr/bin/expect` in system, `throw new SkippedException`
> will not make the jvm exit in `@BeforeAll` junit stage, thus this will cause
> this testcase run failed. So I make change fro
On Sun, 26 May 2024 07:24:16 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When there is no `/usr/bin/expect` in system, `throw new SkippedException`
>> will not make the jvm exit in `@BeforeAll` junit stage, thus this will cause
>> this testcase run failed. So I mak
Hi all,
This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
Thanks.
-
Commit messages:
- 8333477: Delete extra empty spaces in Makefiles
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19537/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:47:46 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
> Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
>
> Thanks.
> /label build
Thanks.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:47:46 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
> Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
>
> Thanks.
Thanks for the review.
Thanks all for the review.
-
PR Comment: https:/
> Hi all,
> This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
> Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
>
> Thanks.
SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
delete extra empty trailing bla
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:49:08 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> delete extra empty trailing blank line in
>> test/jdk/java/rmi/reliability/benchmark/bench/
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:29:39 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
>> Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally wit
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:53:46 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> No, it's an extra newline. A file should end with a newline but one is
>> enough.
>
> As confusing as they are, unfortunately GitHub UI does not render extra
> trailing newlines. This is the only one I could find with grepWin.
I find the ex
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:47:46 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
> Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
>
> Thanks.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: d130d2f4
Author:SendaoYa
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:29:39 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several
>> Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally wit
Hi all,
Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
The change has been verified, only change the testacase, the risk is low.
-
Commit messages:
- 8334057:
Hi all,
Testcase
`test/jdk/java/util/ResourceBundle/Control/MissingResourceCauseTestRun.java`
run fails with root user privileged. I think it's necessary to skip this
testcase when user is root.
The change has been verified, only change the testcase, no risk.
-
Commit messages:
-
pmbuild process for
> linux distribution of JDK, root user is the default user to build the
> openjdk, also is the default user to run the `make test-tier1`, this PR make
> this testcase more robustness.
> The change has been verified, only change the testcase, no risk.
SendaoYan ha
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:46:34 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> change the excption meassges to: Unable to create an unreadable properties
>> file
>
&g
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:18:48 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> change the excption meassges to: Unable to create an unreadable properties
>&g
pmbuild process for
> linux distribution of JDK, root user is the default user to build the
> openjdk, also is the default user to run the `make test-tier1`, this PR make
> this testcase more robustness.
> The change has been verified, only change the testcase, no risk.
SendaoYan ha
pmbuild process for
> linux distribution of JDK, root user is the default user to build the
> openjdk, also is the default user to run the `make test-tier1`, this PR make
> this testcase more robustness.
> The change has been verified, only change the testcase, no risk.
SendaoYan ha
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:31:59 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> add a whitespace before if
>
> test/jdk/java/util/ResourceBundle/Control/MissingResour
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:41:35 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Testcase
>> `test/jdk/java/util/ResourceBundle/Control/MissingResourceCauseTestRun.java`
>> run fails with root user privileged. I think it's necessary to skip this
>> testcase when user is
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:56:53 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Testcase
> `test/jdk/java/util/ResourceBundle/Control/MissingResourceCauseTestRun.java`
> run fails with root user privileged. I think it's necessary to skip this
> testcase when user is root.
> Why run the
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:41:35 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Testcase
>> `test/jdk/java/util/ResourceBundle/Control/MissingResourceCauseTestRun.java`
>> run fails with root user privileged. I think it's necessary to skip this
>> testcase when user is
Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of commit
[de8ee977](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/de8ee97718d7e12b541b310cf5b67f3e10e91ad9)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
The commit being backported was authored by SendaoYan on 20 Jun 2024 and was
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:49:33 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [de8ee977](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/de8ee97718d7e12b541b310cf5b67f3e10e91ad9)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:49:33 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [de8ee977](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/de8ee97718d7e12b541b310cf5b67f3e10e91ad9)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:49:33 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [de8ee977](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/de8ee97718d7e12b541b310cf5b67f3e10e91ad9)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of commit
[8e1d2b09](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8e1d2b091c9a311d98a0b886a803fb18d4405d8a)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
The commit being backported was authored by Rajan Halade on 21 Jun 2024 and was
rev
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:07:54 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [8e1d2b09](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8e1d2b091c9a311d98a0b886a803fb18d4405d8a)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
Hi all,
This pull request contains a backport of commit
[1b1dba80](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/1b1dba8082969244effa86ac03c6053b3b0ddc43)
from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
The commit being backported was authored by Pavel Rappo on 20 Jun 2024 and was
revi
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:07:54 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [8e1d2b09](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8e1d2b091c9a311d98a0b886a803fb18d4405d8a)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:07:54 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [8e1d2b09](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/8e1d2b091c9a311d98a0b886a803fb18d4405d8a)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:11:52 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [1b1dba80](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/1b1dba8082969244effa86ac03c6053b3b0ddc43)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:11:52 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [1b1dba80](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/1b1dba8082969244effa86ac03c6053b3b0ddc43)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:11:52 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [1b1dba80](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/1b1dba8082969244effa86ac03c6053b3b0ddc43)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
Hi all,
After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the
footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with
-Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by docker by OOM.
Maybe the footprint memory usage increased was inevitable, so I thin
Hi all,
Test `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java` fails on
rpm build mock environment. The `df -h` command return fail `df: cannot read
table of mounted file systems: No such file or directory` on the rpm build mock
environment also. I think it's a environmental issue,
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:15:33 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Test `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java` fails on
> rpm build mock environment. The `df -h` command return fail `df: cannot read
> table of mounted file systems: No such file or directory
I think it's a environmental issue, and the
> environmental issue should not cause the test fails, it should skip the test.
>
> Only change the testcase, the change has been verified locally, no risk.
SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 20:49:05 GMT, Dean Long wrote:
> Why does 8M trigger the OOM Killer, but 1M does not?
8M trigger the OOM killer on some environments, maybe there are some test
machines that 8M trigger the OOM exception rather than OOM killer.
The intention of change `8M chunks per iteration`
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:00:41 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
> The change has been
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:12:56 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
>> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> The c
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:00:41 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
> Fix solution similar
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:05:34 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> I'll run this change against our CI instance just to be sure this doesn't
> cause unexpected issues. I'll approve the PR once those runs complete.
Thanks.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19669#issuecomment-2224
JDK-8157850), the change has
> been verified, only change the testacase, the risk is low.
SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
make variable TOOL_VM_OPTIONS to private
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.o
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:05:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> make variable TOOL_VM_OPTIONS to private
>
> test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:39:11 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
>> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> Fix sol
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:39:11 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
>> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> Fix sol
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:04:33 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> What you propose in this PR looks fine to me and matches some other tests
> which do a similar thing. Maybe we should do the same thing in some other
> tests in this directory, to keep them consistent. For now though, I think
> what you h
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:02:49 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> > Does this PR need 2rd reviewer.
>
> core-libs area doesn't mandate 2 reviews. The current PR is a test
> infrastructure change and doesn't impact the functionality of the test. The
> change has been tested in our CI and appears to work
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:00:41 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
> Fix solution similar
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:39:11 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Currently, the testcase `test/jdk/tools/jlink/JLinkReproducibleTest.java`
>> doesn't receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> I think it's necessory to receive jvm options from jtreg.
>> Fix sol
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the
> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with
> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by d
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 05:52:51 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> So I think we should have this increase in memory reviewed by @asotona or
> someone familiar in that area, before deciding whether these tests should be
> changed.
Okey.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#i
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:45:43 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn wrote:
> Looks okay. I agree this needs to be reviewed by @asotona .
Thanks for the review. I will wait reviewed by @asotona before integrate.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19864#issuecomment-2236003849
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the
> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with
> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by d
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the
> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with
> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by d
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:16:29 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the
> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with
> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was killed by d
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:42:17 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> After [JDK-8294960](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8294960), the
>> footprint memory usage increased significantly when run the testcase with
>> -Xcomp jvm options, then cause the testcase was
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:40:36 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Test `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java` fails
>> on rpm build mock environment. The `df -h` command return fail `df: cannot
>> read table of mounted file systems: No such file
I think it's a environmental issue, and the
> environmental issue should not cause the test fails, it should skip the test.
>
> Only change the testcase, the change has been verified locally, no risk.
SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 04:53:33 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> add a word throw
>
> test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java line 2
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 10:23:29 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Would it possible to provide a summary on how Mock works and how we end up
> with the current directory in a location that doesn't have a mount point?
The rpmbuild mock enviroment is like a sandbox, which created by `chroot` shell
command
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 09:50:10 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Test `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java` fails
>> on rpm build mock environment. The `df -h` command return fail `df: cannot
>> read table of mounted file systems: No such file
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:48:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Okay, but doesn't mean that lots of other tests will fail too, esp. tests in
> jdk_nio test group.
Currently we observer only this test fails of tier1.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19905#issuecomment-2250252
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:23:37 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Is this because you only run tier1 or do you mean this is the only test that
> fails?
We only run tier1 on rpmbuild mock enviroment.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19905#issuecomment-2250369276
ase, the change has been verified locally, no risk.
SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
add the exception's toString() into SkipException
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19905/files
- new
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:30:16 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> SendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 1. Just catch the IOException here when getting the FileStore and skip the
>> test in
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 06:29:18 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> The latest change looks OK to me. Please wait for Alan to decide if this is
> OK to integrate.
Okey, thanks.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19905#issuecomment-2252123786
Hi all,
The test `com/sun/jndi/dns/ConfigTests/Timeout.java` fails with `-Xcomp
-XX:TieredStopAtLevel=1` jvm options by fastdebug binary. In C1 mode and with
debug binary, the JIT comple time longger than -Xmixed and release binary is
accatable. So this should not report fails with `-Xcomp
-XX
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:43:41 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I assume it would be better to re-examine the timeout + retry used in the
> test to make it more robust when running with a debug build and different
> compilation modes.
Okey, I will re-examine the timeout value in linux x64/linux aarch64
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:23:37 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> Okay, but doesn't mean that lots of other tests will fail too, esp. tests
>>> in jdk_nio test group.
>>
>> Currently we observer only this test fails of tier1.
>
>> > Okay, but doesn't mean that lots of other tests will fail too, esp. te
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:52:11 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> The testing scenario is very unusual but I think it's okay to skip when POSIX
> permissions aren't supported.
Thanks. /integrate
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19905#issuecomment-2289149517
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:15:33 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Test `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java` fails on
> rpm build mock environment. The `df -h` command return fail `df: cannot read
> table of mounted file systems: No such file or directory
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 06:29:05 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Test `test/jdk/java/lang/invoke/lambda/LogGeneratedClassesTest.java` fails
>> on rpm build mock environment. The `df -h` command return fail `df: cannot
>> read table of mounted file systems: No such file
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 04:43:24 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> tier1 testing with these changes against latest master branch completed
> without issues. I'll go ahead and sponsor this.
Thanks for the testing and sponsor.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19905#issuecomment-2
Hi,
On linux test environments which has docker service, `ifconfig` shows that
`docker0` appears to be a virtual ethernet bridge which is created by the
docker host. And the `docker0` virtual ethernet bridge may cause test
`java/nio/channels/DatagramChannel/SendReceiveMaxSize.java` bind `docker0
Reviewed-by: Yi Yang
-
Commit messages:
- 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
OOM killed
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17386/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17386
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:31:37 GMT, sendaoYan wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Yi Yang
The test case before this PR has a maximum heap of 64MB and applies for 8M of
memory each time in the for loop. When applying for memory for the sixth time,
it was killed by the docker container because of
Hi all,
This PR delete tedious bool type define in
`src/java.base/unix/native/libjsig/jsig.c` and
`src/utils/hsdis/binutils/hsdis-binutils.c`. After JEP
347([JDK-8246032](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8246032)), I think we can
"#include " to use bool type directly, like
[string.h](http
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:06:25 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This PR delete tedious bool type define in
>> `src/java.base/unix/native/libjsig/jsig.c` and
>> `src/utils/hsdis/binutils/hsdis-binutils.c`. After JEP
>> 347([JDK-8246032](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8246032)), I thi
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:07:54 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This PR delete tedious bool type define in
>> `src/java.base/unix/native/libjsig/jsig.c` and
>> `src/utils/hsdis/binutils/hsdis-binutils.c`. After JEP
>> 347([JDK-8246032](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8246032)), I thi
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:03:49 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> I have verified this change locally, include build hsdis.so and check the
>> functional with command java -XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions
>> -XX:+PrintAssembly -version. The verified show this change for hsdis.so work
>> normally.
>
> Ok,
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:50:59 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> This PR delete tedious bool type define in
> `src/java.base/unix/native/libjsig/jsig.c` and
> `src/utils/hsdis/binutils/hsdis-binutils.c`. After JEP
> 347([JDK-8246032](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-824603
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:50:59 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> This PR delete tedious bool type define in
> `src/java.base/unix/native/libjsig/jsig.c` and
> `src/utils/hsdis/binutils/hsdis-binutils.c`. After JEP
> 347([JDK-8246032](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-824603
On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:50:59 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
> This PR delete tedious bool type define in
> `src/java.base/unix/native/libjsig/jsig.c` and
> `src/utils/hsdis/binutils/hsdis-binutils.c`. After JEP
> 347([JDK-8246032](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-824603
> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
> OOM killed
sendaoYan has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous commits
have been removed. The incremental views will show differences compar
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 03:31:37 GMT, sendaoYan wrote:
> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
> OOM killed
This pull request has been closed without being integrated.
-
PR: https://git.op
8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
OOM killed
-
Commit messages:
- 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
OOM killed
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:31:43 GMT, sendaoYan wrote:
> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
> OOM killed
The test case before this PR has a maximum heap of 64MB and applies for 8M of
memory each time i
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:03:18 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> `1k` increments for a total of `512k` times seems overkill. Are you sure
> that's needed to make the test pass? How about `1MB` increments for a total
> of `512` times?
When the docker serivice work normally on the test machine, this t
> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
> OOM killed
sendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCoun
> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
> OOM killed
sendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCoun
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:04:43 GMT, sendaoYan wrote:
>> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
>> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail
>> because OOM killed
>
> sendaoYan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:31:43 GMT, sendaoYan wrote:
> 8323640: [TESTBUG]testMemoryFailCount in
> jdk/internal/platform/docker/TestDockerMemoryMetrics.java always fail because
> OOM killed
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 791b427f
Author:sendaoYan
Committer
Before JDK-8325342(commit id:0bcece995840777db660811e4b20bb018e90439b), all the
files in build/linux-x86_64-server-release/images/jdk/bin are executable:
After JDK-8325342, all the *.debuginfo files in
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 07:23:04 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Before JDK-8325342(commit id:0bcece995840777db660811e4b20bb018e90439b), all
> the files in build/linux-x86_64-server-release/images/jdk/bin are executable:
>
> 