harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fedotov, Alexei A" <alexei.a.fedo...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [drlvm] [testing] Excluding commit tests until the problem is fixed
Date Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:51:36 GMT
Rana, Pavel (Afremov), All,

Geir's comment on r443504 (fix for
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1363 [drlvm] Java 1.5, 64
bit support, JVMTI improvements) reads:

> 1) Stack overflow exception stuff is broken.  I had to remove the
assert
>    in signals_ia32.cpp line 336.  Rana knows and will look.  I also
>    disabled the StackTest.

I have noticed that the patch added a new function
exn_raise_by_name_internal which fails on the first invocation checking
an assertion about thread state, see 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2070 [drlvm][unit]
org.apache.harmony.beans.tests.java.beans.PersistenceDelegateTest
crashes DRLVM.

I also have noticed that this function is called to create
java.lang.StackOverflowError. 

Could you help me to understand the current status of the problem?

With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rana Dasgupta [mailto:rdasgupt@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:27 AM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [drlvm] [testing] Excluding commit tests until the problem
is
>fixed
>
>I fixed the StackOverflow functionality problem by going back and
mapping
>all pages ( guard, alternate stack ) meticulously before trying to
protect
>them. I think we should have done this in the first place.  I also
cleaned
>up the previous initialization workarounds and asserts Geir and I had
>discussed on the JIRA. The Stacktest and all other stack related tests
now
>pass.
>
>I'll submit the patch against 1786 in the next few hours after running
>acceptance tests.
>
>Rana
>
>
>
>> On 10/16/06, Rana Dasgupta <rdasgupt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/16/06, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tuesday 17 October 2006 00:01 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> > > >> I tried to put some back.  StackTest still doesn't work.  It's
>hard
>> > > to
>> > > >> believe...   so I gave up and just kept going :)
>> > >
>> > > >I wonder if the test or the implementation are wrong. Maybe
someone
>> > > who added
>> > > >the test initially could know the answer.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  There is nothing wrong with the stacktest test itself. The
>> > > implementation is not quite 100%complete( I think ), but has
enough
>> > > functionality and the test passes on Windows. On Linux, it fails.
I
>am not
>> > > sure if this is a regression, or if this ever worked. There is a
JIRA
>issue
>> > > 1786. In summary, memory protection setup for the guard page
fails on
>the
>> > > main thread(only). So the guard does not work and the overflow is
not
>> > > detected.
>> >
>> >
>> >    mprotect fails with an ENOMEM which is either a mapping failure
or a
>> > kernel failure. mprotect() has some known flakiness it seems, as
per
>> > literature.
>> >
>> >   The basic implementation on Linux is sound. There are secondary
>design
>> > issues,but we can only get to them later after we have figured out
why
>the
>> > guard setup fails on the main thread.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message