harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pavel Afremov" <pavel.n.afre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][stacks] How large is stack size limit?
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:04:32 GMT
It's correct to throw SOE. But test prints FAIL.

Pavel


On 12/11/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble following this.
>
> How do you define "failure"?
>
> Isn't it correct to throw a SOE?
>
> geir
>
>
> Elena Semukhina wrote:
> > On 12/11/06, Pavel Afremov <pavel.n.afremov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Elena,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >>
> >>   RI*: 3689
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's mean that test is failed on RI, isn't it?
> >>
> >> So 7000 isn't correct for RI. Let's change it to 3000. And test start's
> >> pass
> >> on our VM.
> >
> >
> > It will fail in the interpreter mode :(.
> >
> > Since this functionality depends on implementation, the test may pass
> here
> > and fail there.
> > I'd like to hear from DRLVM gurus that e.g. the test is incorrect
> because
> > the stack size limit in the DRLVM is restricted to some value which
> cause
> > StackOverflowError and the correct number in the test should be XXX. I
> know
> > that 200 is acceptable :) but should it be larger?
> >
> > Elena
> >
> > Pavel.
> >
> >
> > On 12/11/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >> what is incorrect in the test?
> >>
> >> It passes on windows on IBM VME and JRockit. As for the magic number
> >> 7000,
> >> I
> >> think the author of the test considered it quite satisfactory . In the
> >> comments to the test he wrote that an alternative java craches with
> >> 200000:).
> >>
> >> The JVM Spec reads:
> >> * If the computation in a thread requires a larger Java virtual machine
> >> stack than is permitted, the Java virtual machine throws a
> >> StackOverflowError.
> >>
> >> So throwing StackOverflowError is legal and the stack size limit
> depends
> >> on
> >> implementation. The question is whether the test has to pass on the
> >> current
> >> DRLVM implementation. If it fails legally, then we should fix the test
> so
> >> that it reflects the status quo.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Elena
> >>
> >> On 12/11/06, Pavel Afremov <pavel.n.afremov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think that test is invalid. It doesn't pass on windows RI , so … no
> >> > comments. Also it is not clear why depth should be 7000. I can find
> >> this
> >> > magic value in any spec.
> >> >
> >> > Pavel Afremov.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 12/11/06, Elena Semukhina <elena.semukhina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello all,
> >> > >
> >> > > The smoke test stress.Stack fails with StackOverflowError on
> Windows
> >> and
> >> > > linux/INT. It passes only on linux/JIT now.
> >> > > The test algorithm is simple: a method calls itself recursively for
> >> 7000
> >> > > times. The test fails if StackOverflowError is thrown.
> >> > >
> >> > > The following are the numbers of iterations before the test fails:
> >> > >
> >> > > Windows:
> >> > > INT: 353
> >> > > JET: 3963
> >> > > OPT: 32264
> >> > > RI*: 3689
> >> > >
> >> > > Linux:
> >> > > INT: 587
> >> > > JET: 7762
> >> > > OPT: 72105 (!!!)
> >> > > RI*: 61837
> >> > >
> >> > > *RI is Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
> >> > > 1.5.0_08-b03
> >> > > ).
> >> > >
> >> > > Are these numbers expected? Are there any restrictions on stack
> size
> >> in
> >> > > DRLVM?
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Elena
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >> Elena
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message