harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Discussion: how to keep up stability and fast progress all together?
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:57:42 GMT
Mikhail,

On which system have you tried to start it?
I can't say I was so lucky. Today I've tried to start jEdit (I have
the most recent stable version 4.2) several times on my Debian Linux
(32bit) system.

First time it hanged after pressing couple of buttons with:
free(): invalid pointer 0x<some hex number>
free(): invalid pointer 0x<another hex number>

When I started it again it crashed with:
SIGSEGV in VM code.
Stack trace:

I don't want to say that jEdit is the best possible reproducer. Just
like to reminde that we still have problems with it.

With Best Regards,

2007/4/15, Mikhail Fursov <mike.fursov@gmail.com>:
> I also tried jEdit today: (version 4.3 pre9)  - it started fine in default
> JIT mode. I opened and edited several documents and found no errors. I'll
> try more with different verification levels enabled.
>
> On 4/13/07, Alexei Zakharov <alexei.zakharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > jEdit?
> > > But I'm not sure that it works ok on current class library :)
> >
> > I've tried to run jEdit on Harmony recently. I was able to start it on
> > IBM VME only - it fails to start on JITed version of DRLVM and startup
> > takes tooo long in DRLVM's interpreter mode (however, it starts).  But
> > even on IBM VME it is not able to work longer than about 10 minutes.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 2007/4/4, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> > > 2007/4/4, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>:
> > > > On 4/4/07, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > > > > > I'd like to propose the next approach that may help us
to know
> > about
> > > > > > > instabilities: develop (or take existing one, for example,
> > Eclipse
> > > > > > > hello world) a scenario for testing stability and configure
CC
> > to run
> > > > > > > it at all times. The stability scenario must be the only
one
> > scenario
> > > > > > > for CC; it must be short (no longer then an hour), test
JRE in
> > stress
> > > > > > > conditions and cover most of functionality. If the scenario
> > fails then
> > > > > > > all newly committed updates are subject for investigation
and
> > fix (or
> > > > > > > rollback).
> > > > > > Actually, I prefer something without GUI
> > > > > I do not think that remove GUI testing from CC and other stability
> > > > > testing is a good way to go. Because awt and swing modules are
> > really
> > > > > big and complicated pieces of code.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the confusion - I agree that we should continue running
> > > > AWT/Swing tests under CC. But we are talking about scenario that can
> > > > be used for testing stability in terms of race conditions. The first
> > > > scenario that spread in my mind was Eclipse hello world testing
> > > > scenario: it is quite short, verifies core functionality and so on.
> > > > But Vladimir claimed that there might be some issues related to GUI
> > > > testing and we may have a number of 'false alarms'.
> > > In fact Eclipse does not use awt and swing at all so it can not be
> > > used as a test for these modules.
> > >
> > >
> > > > BTW, do you have any scenario in mind that can be used a stability
> > > > criteria (of cause in terms of race conditions)?
> > > jEdit?
> > > But I'm not sure that it works ok on current class library :)
> > >
> > > SY, Alexey
> > >
> > > > > > or at least without using
> > > > > > special 'GUI testing" tools. It should improve quality of this
> > testing
> > > > > > (than less tools than more predictable results :)) Current
> > "Eclipse
> > > > > > hello world" scenario based on the AutoIT for Win and X11GuiTest
> > for
> > > > > > Linux platform. Also we have this scenario based on API calls
> > which
> > > > > > should emulate GUI scenario. From these 2 approaches I prefer
> > second
> > > > > > to minimize 'false alarms'. Or may be some other scenarios
> > (non-GUI)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Thanks, Vladimir
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thought? Objections?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Stepan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I read the discussion on naming, and M1, M2, ... is
fine by
> > me.  How
> > > > > > > > about we pick a proposed date for Apache Harmony M1?

-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD

Mime
View raw message