RFR 8171988: backout of 8062389, 8029459, 8061950
joe.darcy at oracle.com
Mon Dec 26 16:26:39 UTC 2016
Assuming we'll want to revisit this work at some point, there are some
advantages to anti-delta-ing the code changes now, but just problem
listing the tests in terms of making a less confusing history.
On 12/26/2016 1:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:35, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>> I've been told that the latest change I pushed causes some tests to fail, so I prepared a backout patch for 8062389, 8029459, 8061950:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/backout.09/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/backout.09/webrev.01/>
> I just grabbed the webrev patch, applied it to a local repo, then
> compared that against a repo that had been updated to the
> change prior to your push. They are identical, so this appears
> to be an accurate anti-delta.
> Maybe file a new bug, or just make it clear in the synopsis of
> 8171988 that it is an anti-delta.
>> From the stacktrace of the bug report, it seems an early initialization issue with VarHandle(s) involved. Can you shed some light into what tests are failing?
> I’ll post a few comments in 8171988 with sample failures.
>> But first let us backout that change.
>> Regards, Peter
>> On 12/26/2016 10:09 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>> I'm taking a look at this...
>>> Regards, Peter
>>> On 12/26/2016 06:14 AM, Jeff Dinkins wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter -
>>>> I just received mail from out SQE manager, saying that your last changeset has caused our test harness to hiccup. I don’t have much more detail besides the below bug, but I’m wondering if you could do us a huge favor and roll your change back for now while it’s debugged (and so we can get our automated tests going again).
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171988 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171988>
More information about the core-libs-dev