[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-hotspot-runtime-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR(S) 8021296 : [TESTBUG] Test8017498.sh fails to find "gcc" and fails to compile on some Linux
From:       "Daniel D. Daugherty" <daniel.daugherty () oracle ! com>
Date:       2013-07-30 17:35:03
Message-ID: 51F7F947.50406 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thumbs up!

Dan


On 7/30/13 11:16 AM, Calvin Cheung wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I've updated the webrev with your suggestions.
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ccheung/8021296/webrev/
>
> thanks,
> Calvin
>
> On 7/30/2013 6:37 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ccheung/8021296/webrev/
>>
>> How about this for the message in all three tests:
>>
>> echo "WARNING: gcc not found. Cannot execute test." 2>&1
>>
>> test/runtime/6929067/Test6929067.sh
>> Needs an "@bug 8021296" entry.
>>
>> test/runtime/7107135/Test7107135.sh
>>     Needs an "@bug 8021296" entry.
>>
>> test/runtime/jsig/Test8017498.sh
>>     No comments.
>>
>> test/runtime/jsig/TestJNI.c
>>     No comments.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On 7/29/13 6:58 PM, Calvin Cheung wrote:
>>> Dan, Coleen, Yumin, Dean,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>> I've made 2 changes to the webrev:
>>> 1) check the existence of gcc earlier;
>>> 2) simplify sig_handler() - it's now a dummy handler since there's 
>>> no signal being raised for this test case.
>>>
>>> Updated webrev at:
>>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ccheung/8021296/webrev/
>>>
>>> Calvin
>>>
>>> On 7/29/2013 5:04 PM, Yumin Qi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/26/2013 5:58 PM, Dean Long wrote:
>>>>> This looks wrong.  For 32-bit, you probably want REG_EIP, and to 
>>>>> change the "6" into the correct instruction size for x86.
>>>> Agree it should be REG_EIP.
>>>>> Or disable the test for 32-bit. Otherwise the comment:
>>>>>
>>>>>   43     // Move forward to skip failing instruction
>>>>>
>>>>> isn't correct and you won't skip the failing instruction.
>>>>>
>>>> I think it does not matter here for a test case since this handler 
>>>> never executed in test case. It only tests if installing the signal 
>>>> handler for a sig no > MAXSIGNUM works.
>>>> The ip stored in
>>>>
>>>> context->uc_mcontext.gregs[TEST_REG];
>>>>
>>>> Is the one when sig was raised, and when signal handler returns, it 
>>>> should go back to
>>>> context->uc_link->uc_mcontext.gregs[TEST_REG];
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why set context->uc_mcontext.gregs[TEST_REG] 
>>>> here since it will not take this address when signal handler 
>>>> returns.  Since we have no idea what the size of next instruction 
>>>> is, 6 is not a good number anyway. As a test case, just a print out 
>>>> message is OK. So we can just remove the setting.
>>>>
>>>> Yumin
>>>>> On 7/26/2013 4:06 PM, Calvin Cheung wrote:
>>>>>> Please review this small fix for a testcase bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ccheung/8021296/webrev/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JBS: https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8021296
>>>>>> bug: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8021296
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixing 2 issues:
>>>>>> 1) gcc not found on the test machine
>>>>>>     In the sh script, check for if gcc exists. If it doesn't 
>>>>>> exist, declare the test as "Passed".
>>>>>> 2) REG_RIP undeclared
>>>>>>     REG_RIP is only defined for 64-bit linux. The compile failure 
>>>>>> was seen on 32-bit platform.
>>>>>>     The fix is to check for 64-bit platform - use REG_RIP for 
>>>>>> 64-bit and REG_EFL for 32-bit.
>>>>>>     They both have a value of 16.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing:
>>>>>>     Ran jtreg on the testcases and making sure it reports 
>>>>>> "Passed" if gcc isn't found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Calvin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]