On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:33:11 GMT, Elif Aslan <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This change is intended to address the segmentation fault issue that occurs
>> when jspawnhelper is called without arguments,.
>> There is a new test added to verify the behavior in such cases.
>>
>> `[ec2-user@ip-172-16-0-10 jdk]$ make CONF=linux-x86_64-server-fastdebug test
>> TEST=test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/JspawnhelperWarnings.java`
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> Test summary
>> ==============================
>> TEST TOTAL PASS FAIL ERROR
>> jtreg:test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/JspawnhelperWarnings.java
>> 1 1 0 0
>> ==============================
>> TEST SUCCESS
>
> Elif Aslan has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Revert JspawnhelperProtocol.java
So, the test is "passing" with `argc == 2` because jspawnhelper shuts down on
illegal `argv[1]`, right? This is probably fine.
More stylistic comments:
test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/JspawnhelperWarnings.java line 31:
> 29: * @requires (os.family == "linux") | (os.family == "aix")
> 30: * @library /test/lib
> 31: * @run main/othervm/timeout=300 JspawnhelperWarnings
This test does not have to be `othervm`, it could be `driver`:
@run driver JspawnhelperWarnings
test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/JspawnhelperWarnings.java line 61:
> 59: public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
> 60: for (int nArgs = 0; nArgs < 10; ++nArgs)
> 61: jspawnhelperWithNArgs(nArgs);
Style: braces for loop body. There is also no point in using `++nArgs`, when
`nArgs++` is sufficient.
test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/JspawnhelperWarnings.java line 63:
> 61: jspawnhelperWithNArgs(nArgs);
> 62: }
> 63: }
Needs newline at the end of the file.
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18112#pullrequestreview-1922949264
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18112#discussion_r1516478694
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18112#discussion_r1516481779
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18112#discussion_r1516482020
