harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [launcher] Uncaught exceptions not printed on J9 VME
Date Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:42:23 GMT
Oliver Deakin wrote:
> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>> Leo Li wrote:
>>> On 10/15/07, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2007/10/15, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com>:
>>>>> 2007/10/14, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@apache.org>:
>>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>> The bug of RI [4] (fixed in 1.5) being referred by Oliver is a bit
>>>>> wider than just printing out the stack trace. Synopsis reads:
>>>>> "(thread) setUncaughtExceptionHandler() doesn't work on main thread ".
>>>>> I believe this is really strong argument to use DetachCurrentThread
>>>>> and be compatible with RI rather than spec (which should be fixed and
>>>>> will be someday ;)
>>>> FYI, spec is indeed fixed in 1.6 :
>>>> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jni/spec/invocation.html#wp16553

>>>>
>>>
>>> The clue from the change in spec is enough to show that it is
>>> appropriate to call  DetachCurrentThread() in the main thread when
>>> shutdowning VM.
>>
>> Ok if DestroyJavaVM is called after DetachCurrentThread the bug in 
>> HARMONY-3532 will reappear. It looks like DRLVM shutdown sequence 
>> should be fixed to execute shutdown hooks when DetachCurrentThread is 
>> called for the last thread, instead of doing it in DestroyJavaVM.
>>
> 
> I take it the patches applied as part of HARMONY-3532 did not fully 
> resolve the issue?
> 
> It seems from the changes in the spec linked by Alexey that we are now 
> allowed to detach the main thread and, in fact, we are expected to do so 
> on the main thread if we wish any registered exception handlers to be 
> called. It seems, as you suggest, that this is now something that should 
> be fixed in DRLVM to match the RI.
> 
> Is it ok for me to go ahead and add the DetachCurrentThread() call to 
> main.c immediately, or is HARMONY-3532 a big enough issue that you would 
> like me to wait for it to be resolved first?

I would say go ahead and make the change in main.c. Then we'll see 
whether the problem in HARMONY-3532 is back or not.

-- 
Gregory


Mime
View raw message