harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Salikh Zakirov <Salikh.Zaki...@Intel.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][gcv5] finalizer design
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:10:15 GMT
Weldon Washburn wrote:
> Harmony-2560 adds a second finalizer implementation to the Apache code
> base.  

Speaking of finalizers design, I would like to note that HARMONY-1952
has a proof-of-concept idea of refining the current weak references
design to prevent running java code from a vm_hint_finalize() callback,
which may happen anywhere in the user code.

> But "build
> test" does not exercise finalizers to any degree.

Not true.
$ grep -lr finalize vm/tests/
vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeAdditionalSupport2.java
vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeAdditionalTest40.java
vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeAdditionalTest43.java
vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/RuntimeTest2.java
vm/tests/kernel/java/lang/SystemExtensionTest.java
vm/tests/smoke/exception/FinalizeStackTest.java
vm/tests/smoke/gc/Finalizer.java
vm/tests/smoke/gc/FinAlloc.java
vm/tests/smoke/gc/RunFinalizersOnExitTest.java
vm/tests/smoke/gc/SynchronizedFinilazersTest.java
vm/tests/smoke/stress/Finalizer.java
vm/tests/smoke/thread/InfiniteFinalizer.java

But then, I believe that 'build test' run without any additional switches
will not exercise any of GCv5.

> In any case, long term we need just one finalizer design and
> implementation.  I would like to see a discussion on the merits of each of
> the finalizer approaches.  It would be good to pick one approach within one
> week.  Then we can clean up the code to reduce confusion.

I guess you mean "it would be good if someone submits a _cleaned code_
within one week so that we could make a decision" ?


Mime
View raw message