Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.231 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=txCsw8QRYejRHOrR6sfPBjMA0DM+3U5Eon6qa96uRAl62wNJMY/e0Txlh2PmGx8kOgjKRr26ptu/cn+D2kygc2ftYRwd7hMr3vpu/zD7TKfsbG5D1tYK9uYyETkp8jxZEEhJFfMzJxliltQHRMknarXyyRbe+sJVqfDwxBFEDOY=
Message-ID: <f944d83d0610300600n7fab30b0idc5b3dc1036ce2a8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:00:54 +0700
From: "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib][IBMVME]the return value of java.exe
In-Reply-To: <e29119980610300447i4a6c880fxf3c9bb14c6c4472d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <211709bc0610291903i29eb7be2yd91e4a47dcd89933@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4545718E.5080208@gmail.com>
	 <e29119980610292056r368107b8t488bf359e920dd39@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e29119980610292114y317db02fs87d3a6bb53761395@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e29119980610292154i7a499b23p4b2b91e8c81ee4ab@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e29119980610292235v29101c2fs99d9cf206cebb3d9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4545C1A3.3020705@gmail.com>
	 <e29119980610300218h6dbe79b2g8e547c3e8cecdab7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e29119980610300447i4a6c880fxf3c9bb14c6c4472d@mail.gmail.com>

2006/10/30, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2006 is created with
> patches :-). I created two separate patches one for DRLVM another one
> for Classlib. I don't know if IBMVME requires additional changes. Even
> though DestroyJavaVM will not terminate the whole process now it still
> doesn't clean up resources properly. I'm going to focus on that
> problem...but it seems to take much more than one day :-)
>
> Thanks
> Evgueni.
>
> On 10/30/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > I agree, we shouldn't kill entire process. Unfortunately, it is how
> > current implementation does. Actually, shutdown process is a weak
> > place of DRLVM and needs deep refactoring. I will try to figure out
> > what we can do as a short term solution.
> >
> > Evgueni
> >
> > On 10/30/06, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> > > > BTW, here is two more interesting cases
> > > >
> > > > 1) Throw uncaught exception in a new thread. Both RI and DRLVM give 0
> > > > in that case.
Interesting, I guess it does not depend on which Java thread
terminates last, only main is counted? Looks a bit inconsistent...

> > > > 2) Call System.exit(123) in a new thread. Both RI and DRLVM give 123.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, DRLVM calls system _exit() at the end of System.exit().
> > > > That's why DestroyJavaVM never returns. So the changes I proposed for
> > > > the launcher do not help until DRLVM forcibly terminates the process.
> > > > :-(
> > > >
> > > > Does IBMVME uses system calls to stop the proccess? Does DestroyJavaVM
> > > > returns?
> > >
Seems that explicit call to System.exit() and natural termination
(even by uncaught throwable) are different use cases and need separate
handling.

> > > You cannot kill the entire process when destroying the VM.  Apps that
> > > embed the VM will have a nasty surprise.

Is it the case for System.exit()/halt() ? Given the test result above,
I suspect RI and J9 just kill the process.

> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > > On 10/30/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> It seems we need to fix the launcher... which is common part for both
> > > >> DRLVM and IBVME. I see the problem in the following code sequence...
> > > >>
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>  (*jvm)->DetachCurrentThread(jvm);
> > > >>  (*jvm)->DestroyJavaVM (jvm);
> > > >> </snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> The current thread has an uncaught exception raised before it calls
> > > >> DetachCurrentThread. This exception is printed out by default uncaught
> > > >> exception handler which is called upon thread detaching. So after
> > > >> DetachCurrentThread completes we have no exception anymore... Moreover
> > > >> we can not play with DetachCurrentThread and DestroyJavaVM return code
> > > >> since it should not depend on uncaught exceptions. So I think the fix
> > > >> should look like the following:
> > > >>
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>   if (env->ExceptionOccured) {
> > > >>        rc = 1;
> > > >>   }
> > > >>  (*jvm)->DetachCurrentThread(jvm);
> > > >>  (*jvm)->DestroyJavaVM (jvm);
> > > >>  return rc;
> > > >> </snip>
> > > >>
> > > >> If there are no objections I'll come up with the patch soon...
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Evgueni
> > > >> On 10/30/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > I'll try to see how to fix it for DRLVM
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Evgueni
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 10/30/06, Evgueni Brevnov <evgueni.brevnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > hmmm.... I got 0 for DRLVM on Win2003
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Evgueni
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 10/30/06, Spark Shen <smallsmallorgan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > Then we may need to follow RI, since different error code fails
> > > >> application
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Best regards
> > > >> > > > Tony Wu ??:
> > > >> > > > > Consider this class,
> > > >> > > > > public class TestExeReturn {
> > > >> > > > > public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
> > > >> > > > > throw new Exception();
> > > >> > > > > }
> > > >> > > > > }
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > when we run "java TestExeReturn" and "echo %errorlevel%", we
> > > >> got 1 of
> > > >> > > > > RI, -1 of DRLVM and 0 for IBMVM.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > a testcase of apache ant failed for this issue.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Spark Shen
> > > >> > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> > >
> > >
> >
>