harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mikhail Loenko" <mloe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] verifier discussion
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:46:08 GMT
I've made the switch of the default verifier. "build clean" might be necessary

Thanks,
Mikhail

2007/7/10, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
> [snipped]
> > some clarification. I don't have any objections in general for having components
> > pluggable. What I mean is this general work (moving to pluggable components)
> > should not be necessarily connected with discussion/modification/switching the
> > design or implementation of specific component
>
> I agree, runtime pluggability is not very important for current
> development activities (provided that build-time switching is
> possible). However, here is the key difference with *certified* binary
> distribution and development builds, we hardly would afford certifying
> many build combinations. But distinctions in component characteristics
> (perf, footprint, etc) may become essential in specific
> environments/app domains (e.g. embedded systems); we should strive for
> max runtime adaptability in a long term.
>
> --
> Alexey
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> >
> > We had several examples in Harmony when we had
> > > alternative implementations of the same thing. In most of the cases
> > > (e.g. Crypto, Math, RMI) we had a build switch, and only in case of GC
> > > we had a runtime switch.
> > >
> > > GC is special because it was easy to identify where the bug is by
> > > switching GC in runtime. Since almost all the verifier bugs can be
> > > easily identified by "VerifyError" or by using "-noverify" option, I
> > > think a build switch is enough here.
> > >
> > > The SPECs do not spend much time in verification, but I observe
> > > Eclipse start time improvement on my laptop.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if it sounds reasonable
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mikhail
> > >
> > > 2007/7/5, Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng.li@gmail.com>:
> > > > It's a wise choice for Java6 to decouple the type inferencing from
> > > > online type checking. To decide which verifier to use, we probably
> > > > need know which design is better for the type checking transition.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > xiaofeng
> > > >
> > > > On 7/5/07, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Mikhail,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your verifier implemented very interesting algorithm.
> > > > >
> > > > > * We already started moving into Java 6.0 direction, and Java 6.0
> > > > > suggested a different verification scheme [1]. I see implementing
this
> > > > > scheme as more important task than switching between two old
> > > > > verifiers.
> > > > >
> > > > > * When a new scheme is implemented the legacy scheme won't be used
> > > > > often, this means performance considerations are of less importance
> > > > > compared to minimal risk considerations and ease of bug fixing. Any
> > > > > switching comes at the cost of risk and increase in maintenance
> > > > > efforts.
> > > > >
> > > > > * The legacy scheme is to be completely removed from specification
> > > > > soon, so the new verifier should be separate from the old code. I
> > > > > found it more productive to decide which verifier code base should
be
> > > > > a base for new development.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] New Java SE 6 Feature: Type Checking Verifier,
> > > > > https://jdk.dev.java.net/verifier.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/5/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > We have passed code and feature freeze recently and have a momentum
for
> > > > > > bigger changes in the code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have recently accepted [1] a contribution of an alternative
implementation of
> > > > > > bytecode verifier [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New implementation demonstrated pretty nice testing [3] and
> > > > > > performance results [4].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though many bugs in current implementation were fixed and it
now also
> > > > > > demonstrate good testing results, the performance difference
remains the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest that we switch default implementation for Harmony
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Mikhail
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200706.mbox/%3c906dd82e0706040145o1173ce6dqcc671777c5b413c6@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200703.mbox/%3c8E389A5F2FEABA4CB1DEC35A25CB39CEB48212@mssmsx411%3e
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200703.mbox/%3c906dd82e0703152337n133fafd8t8275ed9277c00204@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > With best regards,
> > > > > Alexei,
> > > > > ESSD, Intel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message