harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Petrashkova, Vera Y" <vera.y.petrashk...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-3363) [DRLVM] contribution of alternative bytecode verifier
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:57:16 GMT

Here are the results of VTS tests running:
4320 VTS tests were run
4183 - passed on DRLVM
4234 - passed on DRLVM with alternative bytecode verifier

Vera Petrashkova

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Petrashkova, Vera Y [mailto:vera.y.petrashkova@intel.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:52 PM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-3363) [DRLVM] contribution of
>alternative bytecode verifier
>Do I understand correct that VTS tests [1] that currently fail because
>of unimplemented subroutine verification will now pass?
>I'm going to run the DRLVM VTS to check how it impacts the pass rate
>[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3206
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>From: Mikhail Loenko (JIRA) <jira@apache.org>
>>Date: 12.03.2007 16:55
>>Subject: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-3363) [DRLVM] contribution of
>>alternative bytecode verifier
>>To: commits@harmony.apache.org
>>[DRLVM] contribution of alternative bytecode verifier
>>                Key: HARMONY-3363
>>                URL:
>>            Project: Harmony
>>         Issue Type: New Feature
>>         Components: Contributions
>>           Reporter: Mikhail Loenko
>>This is contribution of experimental bytecode verifier on behalf of
>>"Experimental" means that there is no formal proof currently available
>>of its equivalence to the step-by-step verification algorithm
>>described in the spec.
>>The only known difference to the conventional verifier is dead code
>>verification: RI makes stricter checks against dead code.
>>Since it's about dead code, this difference does not affect
>>Comparing to the current Harmony verifier, this one is supposed to be
>>complete (Harmony currently does not support jsr/ret verification) and
>>much faster
>>So, I'm attaching 3 files:
>>The first one: Verifier_bulk.zip is a bulk contribution on behalf of
>>Intel for archiving purposes. It contains the legal files as well
>>The second one: Verifier_patch is my fix to the bugs that I found
>>while the first archive was coming thru legal
>>The third archive Verifier_patched.zip is a merge for previous two.
>>It's an up-to-date version for all the engineering purposes
>>To try it out one should replace the current 'verifier' directory in
>>vm with the new one and rebuild
>>This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>>You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message