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 rdasgupt@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.230 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:references;
        b=eeoCeEslvz0fouc2EeHv9YX/Xr91dndTE+ouC8lsxuYslbaYGArZcLLMM2/ab0AVDV8p7avU6QfE10PqZDbsTVsCUFKZAm+5x/JVTbdY/RicN/jCTTyYq5aj/QFz0K6xOvzByCGRhH62PNRHSFBfs1HmP9etpm8oqgnH7j3DyRo=
Message-ID: <51d555c70611151037i34e641b9xcc4539403c80dbc8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:37:56 -0700
From: "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasgupt@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [drlvm] New regression: java.lang.ClassGenericsTest4
In-Reply-To: <c30d70960611151026r32a2de75gc221ea5c57d51db3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_81889_4793232.1163615876700"
References: <200611150401.28037.gshimansky@gmail.com>
	 <f944d83d0611150038x246390f1ob32289ee4c1fff42@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ejf2o0$2bc$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <f944d83d0611150521i4f75ba4as732428ea9c1cec8a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f944d83d0611150531y6fe3e608vce8a4f0b8e36e860@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ejf551$asj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <f944d83d0611150857m56dc3666j6bdb785c484001d0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f944d83d0611150925j5c48f9a2ia3d7603a089513e5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <783bf8b0611151000x6c85a50ag30c72e99a4e0400d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960611151026r32a2de75gc221ea5c57d51db3@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_81889_4793232.1163615876700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I think that a problem with the junit tests is that some failures spit out
to the console, but show up in the test run results as passed. I find this
very confusing. So unless you are watching all the time, you can miss them.

On 11/15/06, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> This is a good discussion, and let me praise Alexey for the wonderful fix.
>
> I'm a bit concerned about our accepptance checks. How this could be
> that regression was missed by a committer and an engineer durring
> acceptance test runs?
>
> Bug comments showed that Gregory ran the tests before a commit. Do
> tests report such problems clearly?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> On 11/15/06, Pavel Afremov <pavel.n.afremov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh. It's cool fix for my stupid bug.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for Alexey very much.
> >
> > Pavel Afremov.
> >
> >
> > On 11/15/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pardon for my English - a bit sleepy already...
> > >
> > > 2006/11/15, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
> > > > Err, what I found is really trivial bug. But it took quite a few
> time
> > > > to discover - seems today was not my day :(
> > > >
> > > > Index: vm/vmcore/src/exception/exceptions_impl.cpp
> > > > ===============================================================
> > > > --- vm/vmcore/src/exception/exceptions_impl.cpp (revision 475132)
> > > > +++ vm/vmcore/src/exception/exceptions_impl.cpp (working copy)
> > > > @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@
> > > >
> > > >         if (NULL != exception->exc_cause) {
> > > >             tmn_suspend_disable_recursive();
> > > > -            jthrowable exc_cause = oh_allocate_local_handle();
> > > > +            exc_cause = oh_allocate_local_handle();
> > > >             exc_cause->object = exception->exc_cause;
> > > >             tmn_suspend_enable_recursive();
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, we definitely need a regression test for this.
> > > >
> > > > 2006/11/15, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> > > > > > 2006/11/15, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> 2006/11/15, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> > > > > >> > > The guilty change is the following, which effectively turns
> on
> > > > > >> > > VM_LAZY_EXCEPTION support in exceptions_impl.cpp:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Well this is a patch from HARMONY-2018 which doesn't hide the
> > > fact that
> > > > > >> > it enables lazy exceptions. Why shouldn't we enable them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gregory,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just re-read my posts and couldn't find anything critique
> or
> > > > > > offending - please don't take regressions too personal. I'm sure
> we
> > > > > > will be able to fix this one quite soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn't offended in any way. I was just thinking that you know
> some
> > > > > secret knowledge that lazy exceptions do not work and thus
> enabling
> > > them
> > > > > is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Alexei
>

------=_Part_81889_4793232.1163615876700--