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] Please review HARMONY-3862
Date Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:51:29 GMT
Harmony now prints SUCCESS on the test case from 3862.
Nina, please let me know if there are outstanding issues.

Thanks,
Mikhail

2007/7/15, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>:
> 2007/7/10, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
> > Nina,
> > My algorithm inlines subroutines, so it is important for it to know to
> > which subroutince each basic block belongs to. For this case I believe
> > the algorithm may assume that questionable parts of subroutines belong
> > to the subroutine which is upper in the caller chain.
> >
> > Anyway, Mikhail volunteered to check in his new verifier which doesn't
> > inline subroutines, so I believe we just need to wait a bit until this
> > happen and recheck.
>
> I'm going to finish in a few days
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/10/07, Nina Rinskaya <nina.rinskaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Alexei and all,
> > >
> > > It looks that we finally should get back to the issue because Eclipse
> > > compiler people say it can be not Eclipse compiler, but Harmony verifier
> > > issue. Here is the comment from
> > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=194398#c7:
> > >
> > > "It seems that it is legal to return to a higher level in the subroutines
> > > call
> > > chain.
> > > From the JVMS (2nd edition):
> > > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/ClassFile.doc.html#9308
> > >
> > > "Each instance of type returnAddress can be returned to at most once. If a
> > > ret
> > > instruction returns to a point in the subroutine call chain above the ret
> > > instruction corresponding to a given instance of type returnAddress, then
> > > that
> > > instance can never be used as a return address."
> > >
> > > This would mean that as long as the ret instruction is executed only once,
> > > this
> > > is fined. It would be a verify error if the ret 3 could be executed after
> > > the
> > > ret 1 has been executed.
> > >
> > > So I would close this one as WONTFIX since the code generation is actually
> > > fine
> > > and it seems that the Harmony bytecode verifier is too strict."
> > >
> > > Should we re-open the issue and investigate it?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nina
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/9/07, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nina,
> > > >
> > > > It was nothing was to be sorry about. :-) I was just trying to
> > > > understand your concern myself. I believe we should pay attention to
> > > > the difference if it prevents any applications from running. There are
> > > > too much arbitrary differences to pay attention to each of them.
> > > >
> > > > For example, Sun's verifier is shipped in a form of DLL which allows
> > > > BEA to use it . We don't ship our verifier in a form of DLL. This is a
> > > > difference, but we don't file JIRA issue about it.
> > > >
> > > > From the other side behavior difference might be serious if it impacts
> > > > something seriously. If you think this incompatibility has a serious
> > > > impact, just indicate the impact and the incompatibility will be
> > > > addressed.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > On 7/9/07, Nina Rinskaya <nina.rinskaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Alexei,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for misleading you. I agree that it's ok to forget about the
issue
> > > > > because there is the Eclipse compiler bug describing this issue.
I was
> > > > just
> > > > > confused by Harmony and Sun verifiers behavior difference, but it's
not
> > > > a
> > > > > Harmony issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Nina
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/6/07, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nina,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > but also Sun's verifier bug
> > > > > > Mmm, I'm not sure I follow. Isn't it enough to have a bug against
> > > > > > Eclipse compiler to forget about this issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you, Alexei
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/6/07, Nina Rinskaya <nina.rinskaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Alexei,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm just not sure how we track compatibility issues if
there is a
> > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > in Harmony and RI behavior. Is it now proven that it's
not only
> > > > Eclipse
> > > > > > > Compiler, but also Sun's verifier bug? If yes, I agree
that it's not
> > > > > > > necessary to reopen the issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Nina
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nina,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eclipse bug owner confirmed that this was an issue
with the
> > > > compiler.
> > > > > > > > Why do you want to reopen the issue against DRLVM?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Nina Rinskaya <nina.rinskaya@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm writing this just to bring your attention
to
> > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3862
and ask
> > > > > > drlvm/verifier
> > > > > > > > > people to see whether it's necessary to reopen
it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It says about VerifyError trown by Harmony when
running a class
> > > > > > compiled
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > Eclipse Compiler. It was closed as 'Cannot Reproduced',
but it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > reproduced (see HARMONY-3862 comments). It looks
that it's not
> > > > > > Harmony
> > > > > > > > > issue, but Eclipse compiler issue (I opened the
bug against
> > > > Eclipse
> > > > > > > > > compiler: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=194398),
> > > > and
> > > > > > RI
> > > > > > > > > issue (it should also throw VerifyError, but
it doesn't). But
> > > > still
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > different behavior on RI and Harmony implementations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So could someone take care of this issue and
probably reopen it
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > compatibility issue if it makes sense? Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Nina
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > With best regards,
> > > > > > > > Alexei,
> > > > > > > > ESSD, Intel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > With best regards,
> > > > > > Alexei,
> > > > > > ESSD, Intel
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > With best regards,
> > > > Alexei,
> > > > ESSD, Intel
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei,
> > ESSD, Intel
> >
>

Mime
View raw message