On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 07:15:20 GMT, Shawn M Emery <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jiangli Zhou has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Fixed the ENCRYPT_16_BLKS fall through case that sviswa7 pointed out in PR >> review. > > test/jdk/com/sun/crypto/provider/Cipher/AES/TestGCMSplitBound.java line 26: > >> 24: /* >> 25: * @test >> 26: * @bug 8371864 > > Does it make sense to just run the unit test on architectures with `@requires > vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx512f.*" | vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx2.*"` annotation? Thanks for reviewing and testing! > Does it make sense to just run the unit test on architectures with @requires > vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx512f.*" | vm.cpu.features ~= ".*avx2.*" annotation? Limiting the test execution on the relevant devices is a good idea. We can also check for `os.simpleArch == "x64"`. We probably could check for ".*avx512.*" instead ".*avx512f.*" just to make sure we still get the proper test coverage in case there is any future/hidden bugs with populating cpu feature flags. I just did a quick testing: On my local machine, these related cpu feature flags are set: `avx, avx2`. On a machine enabled with the `aesgcm_avx512` intrinsic, these are the related cpu feature flags: `avx, avx2, avx512f, avx512dq, avx512cd, avx512bw, avx512vl, avx512_vpopcntdq, avx512_vpclmulqdq, avx512_vaes, avx512_vnni, avx512_vbmi2, avx512_vbmi, avx512_bitalg, avx512_ifma` ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28363#discussion_r2566334457
