JDK-8276046: codestrings.validate_vm gtest fails on ppc64, s390

[tstuefe]

Trivial patch to switch off the associated gtest on these platforms. PPC64 and s390 compilers don't use code strings.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

• JDK-8276046: codestrings.validate_vm gtest fails on ppc64, s390

Reviewers

• Aleksey Shipilev (@shipilev - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to 0f3e2cf
• Martin Doerr (@TheRealMDoerr - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to f651b6a

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6133/head:pull/6133
$ git checkout pull/6133

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/6133
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/6133/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 6133

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 6133

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6133.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back stuefe! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@tstuefe The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot-compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (0d4108b8)
• 01: Full - Incremental (f651b6ae)
• 00: Full (0f3e2cf3)

[shipilev]

It looks okay to me, but do you want to join the family of #ifdefs at the beginning of the file?

[openjdk]

@tstuefe This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8276046: codestrings.validate_vm gtest fails on ppc64, s390

Reviewed-by: shade, mdoerr

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 9 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 93be099: 4718400: Many quantities are held as signed that should be unsigned
• 168081e: 8270490: Charset.forName() taking fallback default value
• a292733: 8275975: Remove dead code in ciInstanceKlass
• 4060602: 8275800: Redefinition leaks MethodData::_extra_data_lock
• 485d658: 8275851: Deproblemlist open/test/jdk/javax/swing/JComponent/6683775/bug6683775.java
• b3f45f8: 8275689: [TESTBUG] Use color tolerance only for XRender in BlitRotateClippedArea test
• 6c05cc9: 8275863: Use encodeASCII for ASCII-compatible DoubleByte encodings
• 2f979ec: 8213120: java/awt/TextArea/AutoScrollOnSelectAndAppend/AutoScrollOnSelectAndAppend.java fails on mac10.13
• 9e831bc: 8275886: G1: remove obsolete comment in HeapRegion::setup_heap_region_size

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[TheRealMDoerr]

Thanks for fixing the issue! Looks ok to me, too. Aleksey's suggestion to have the platform preprocessor stuff at the beginning sounds good. Even though I don't know how this should be done. In addition, wouldn't it be better to use positive instead of negative tests for platforms which do use code strings?

[tstuefe]

Okay, I followed Alekseys' advice. I rather keep the negatives explicit though. The "DISABLED_" prefix seems to be the standard way to disable gtests, but I really don't care.

Thanks, Thomas

[tstuefe]

@TheRealMDoerr Martin, are you okay with this?

[TheRealMDoerr]

I'm ok with it, but I'd prefer less ifndefs. ZERO, PPC and S390 could be covered by one Iine. Or even better something like #if defined(X86) || defined(ARM).

[tstuefe]

I'm ok with it, but I'd prefer less ifndefs. ZERO, PPC and S390 could be covered by one Iine. Or even better something like #if defined(X86) || defined(ARM).

ZERO cannot be following the same logic since it is orthogonal to the CPU architecture. E.g. zero on x86 builds with -DAMD64 -DZERO, and AMD64 causes X86 to be defined:

jdk/src/hotspot/share/utilities/macros.hpp

Lines 447 to 455 in 168081e

	#if defined(IA32) || defined(AMD64)
	#define X86
	#define X86_ONLY(code) code
	#define NOT_X86(code)
	#else
	#undef X86
	#define X86_ONLY(code)
	#define NOT_X86(code) code
	#endif

so you need to exclude ZERO independently from handling CPU architectures.

ARM is only 32bit arm:

jdk/src/hotspot/share/utilities/macros.hpp

Lines 529 to 531 in 168081e

	// Note: There are two ARM ports. They set the following in the makefiles:
	// 1. 32-bit port: -DARM -DARM32 -DTARGET_ARCH_arm
	// 2. 64-bit port: -DAARCH64 -D_LP64 -DTARGET_ARCH_aaarch64

So it would have to be at least #if defined(X86) || defined(ARM) || defined(AARCH64). And downstream porters of different platforms (mips, riscv, sparc) would then have to opt in and extend that construct with their own macros. Which nobody would do probably since you would need to know it exists. So I prefer to keep the negative here. Also makes more sense to have explicit exclusions, since there are concrete reasons for exclusions vs having concrete reasons for doing this test.

So, are we good with:

#ifndef PRODUCT
#ifndef ZERO
// Neither ppc nor s390 compilers use code strings.
#if !defined(PPC) && !defined(S390)

?

[TheRealMDoerr]

#if !defined(ZERO) && !defined(PPC) && !defined(S390) would be equivalent, but your version is fine, too.

[tstuefe]

Thank you!

/integrate

[TheRealMDoerr]

Thanks for the update!

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 809488b.
Since your change was applied there have been 9 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 93be099: 4718400: Many quantities are held as signed that should be unsigned
• 168081e: 8270490: Charset.forName() taking fallback default value
• a292733: 8275975: Remove dead code in ciInstanceKlass
• 4060602: 8275800: Redefinition leaks MethodData::_extra_data_lock
• 485d658: 8275851: Deproblemlist open/test/jdk/javax/swing/JComponent/6683775/bug6683775.java
• b3f45f8: 8275689: [TESTBUG] Use color tolerance only for XRender in BlitRotateClippedArea test
• 6c05cc9: 8275863: Use encodeASCII for ASCII-compatible DoubleByte encodings
• 2f979ec: 8213120: java/awt/TextArea/AutoScrollOnSelectAndAppend/AutoScrollOnSelectAndAppend.java fails on mac10.13
• 9e831bc: 8275886: G1: remove obsolete comment in HeapRegion::setup_heap_region_size

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@tstuefe Pushed as commit 809488b.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.