harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [eclipse] Eclipse 3.3 crashes on current Harmony
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:24:57 GMT
Alexey,

AFAIK, the last switch to the new verifier happened on Aug, 8, see
[1]. I will check if the problem happens from the very beginning or
not.

[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=563766



On 9/6/07, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the new verifier has this issue from the very begining? And this is
> not a regression, right?
>
> Does anybody know when new verifier was commited?
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2007/9/6, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
> > Alexey,
> >
> > Sorry. At the time I wrote that observation I was confused with the
> > alternative verifier convention to return _FALSE to indicate a
> > successful check in checkAccess* functions.
> >
> > The problem happens in a different place and is related to mixing of
> > classes from different class loaders. The fact is that compared class
> > handles reference different class loaders, and this might be problem
> > of the verifier internal cache.
> >
> > I've updated HARMONY-4738 [1] with the latest information, but
> > resolution is not clear yet.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4738
> >
> >
> > On 9/6/07, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Alexei.
> > >
> > > So I would say that we should revert this patch and then think on how
> > > to resolve the issue in better way?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > SY, Alexey
> > >
> > > 2007/9/5, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>:
> > > > Gregory,
> > > > Thanks for your help!
> > > >
> > > > My observation is that the problem showed itself after the following fix
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=563763
> > > >
> > > > Tracking things in a debugger I can see that the following new line of
> > > > code returns unexpected result. I will dig further into the behavior
> > > > of this function.
> > > > -        return _TRUE;
> > > > +        return !class_is_same_package(k_class, referred) &&
> > > > vf_is_extending(k_class, referred);
> > > >
> > > > With best regards, Alexei
> > > >
> > > > On 9/5/07, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5 September 2007 at 16:05, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > Alexey Petrenko wrote:
> > > > > > > 2007/9/4, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> > > > > > >>> It seems to be a bug in verifier, but there weren't
any changes in
> > > > > > >>> verifier recently, so I am not sure it is a regression.
Probably this
> > > > > > >>> bug was hidden and didn't show up until recently.
> > > > > > >> BTW, building DRLVM with -Duse_original_verifier=true
allows eclipse 3.3
> > > > > > >> to start. I think that maybe switching back to older
verifier again
> > > > > > >> might improve the situation.
> > > > > > > Yes, this helps. -noverify should also help in this case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've created HARMONY-4738 to track the issue.
> > > > > > > It would be nice if someone familiar with the verifier
could fix the issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW I think I've found out the reason for this bug. Eclipse
3.3 has an
> > > > > > ICU4J implementation bundled with it. It uses ICU 3.6.1 while
we have
> > > > > > ICU4J 3.4.4 in bootclasspath.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this case ICU classes are loaded from our 3.4.4 JAR file
except for
> > > > > > some classes that may not be present in the older version. In
this case
> > > > > > they are taken from Eclipse's JAR file which leads to inconsistencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder why older verifier implementation works ok...
> > > > >
> > > > > No idea.  I also wonder why J9 is unaffected.
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI: I see similar but not identical problems on Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4738
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> 2007/9/4, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>> Yes, looks like we really have a regression.
> > > > > > >>>>> I've tried Eclipse with M2 and recent classlib
with j9 and works in
> > > > > > >>>>> both cases. But silently crashes silently
in the very beging. Even
> > > > > > >>>>> without trace in configuration directory.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So we need to investigate the issue.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Any help is welcome :)
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> SY, Alexey
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> 2007/9/4, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>>> Leo Li wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 9/4/07, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Guys,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I've tried to run In Harmony
with Eclipse bundle on the recent
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> harmony/drlvm build but it
crashes silently in the very begining.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I would say that this is very
serious regression for us.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll continue investigation
but it would be nice if someone will try
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to investigate it in the same
time.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> SY, Alexey
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  Yes, it is a serious regression.
And do you know when it start to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> fail?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>   I will try it when I go to office
tomorrow since I have no classlib
> > > > > > >>>>>>> on hand. Not sure whether I can
help.:)
> > > > > > >>>>>> FYI: It's working ok for me on the
current HEAD of classlib (r572680)
> > > > > > >>>>>> with the IBM VME.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Tim
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Gregory
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Gregory
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > With best regards,
> > > > Alexei,
> > > > ESSD, Intel
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With best regards,
> > Alexei,
> > ESSD, Intel
> >
>


-- 
With best regards,
Alexei,
ESSD, Intel

Mime
View raw message