harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pavel Ozhdikhin" <pavel.ozhdik...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][tesing]run modes for DRLVM tests
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:04:38 GMT
We have to make sure the default mode is 100% stable. It's just strange that
we did not test it in pre-commit checks till now. BTW in the default mode
all methods first compiled by JET so testing default mode may be considered
as testing JET + recompilation mechanics. I vote for changing JET to default
in pre-commit tests.

To ensure coverage of other modes (JET, server) we may add them to the CC
testing. We should keep balance between the coverage of different modes by
pre-commit tests and the time needed to run them.

Thanks,
Pavel


On 3/2/07, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2007/3/2, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com>:
> > On 01 Mar 2007 18:58:47 +0300, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On the 0x28C day of Apache Harmony Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > > I think that we also should run DRLVM tests in the default (without
> > > > any switches) mode.
> > >
> > > why? has there been any test that failed in default mode while passing
> > > in jet, opt, server modes?
>
> OTOH the jet mode did not detect regressions for a long, either. The
> question of default settings is usually a subtle matter, but indeed
> testing of default mode by default seems reasonable ;)
>
> >
> > Seems we should check the default behavior of VM. And yes, this mode
> > has some specific bugs, for example, Harmony-2692.
> >
> >  Thanks, Vladimir
> >
> > >
> > > > Issue 3276 was created to track it. Note, this
> > > > issue also update default test run modes from "int, jet, opt" to
> "int,
> > > > def, opt".
> > > >
> > > >  Thanks, Vladimir
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Egor Pasko
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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