harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rana Dasgupta" <rdasg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm] Regression caused by compressed VTable pointers
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:15:13 GMT
  A stress test is intended to verify that the system works correctly upto
the the max limits supported by the design. In this case ~ 8MB of vtable
space which is large enough for > 30000 classes.
  Any stress test can be constructed to go beyond any design constraint, it
does not give us much new information. I think that it makes sense to leave
it as a failing test. We can rethink if we need to support more in the next
milestone, and what's the best way to do it. A good way would be to
investigate if an Eclipse type scenario can be found that actually loads
more than 34000 classes.
On Dec 16, 2007 10:39 AM, Eugene Ostrovsky <eugene.s.ostrovsky@gmail.com>

> I agree with Mikhail and Tim.
> Stress tests are intended to make stress. A stress test that was
> simplified to make him pass is useless.
> Xiao-Feng Li wrote:
> > I guess it should be easy to have a resizable pool for Vtables by
> preserving bigger address space for it.
> What do you mean by 'preserving'?
> If we preallocate memory for a pool it can't be called 'resizable'
> IMHO even if it is really huge.
> How much do you propose to increase the pool? 2 times? 10 times?
> Thanks,
> Eugene.
> On Dec 15, 2007 2:56 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > I'm against simplifying tests to make them passing.
> > > Tests are for catching bugs and failing tests indicate that a problem
> does exist
> >
> > Yep, no need to make the test 'artificially' pass.  If it is a good test
> > then leave it as a failing test so we know what to fix.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message