harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vasily Levchenko" <vasily.v.levche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Releasing scheduling
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:07:08 GMT
Could you please attach javap result of affected class ?

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 4/18/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> > Have you got any updates about commitment of
> > H-5750<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750>.
> >
> >
> > About testing.
> > We've discussed it with some folks, but I don't know how it complex for
> > testing system of Harmony.
> > Actually the functionality we need is used for recalculating stack maps
> > after instrumentation. There is a subproject of TPTP called Probekit
> that
> > injects probes into compiled code. But for re-calculation requires valid
> JNI
> > pointer (you can find some details in
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629). So minimize test
> it
> > possible re-use static instrumentator with introduced in the same
> bugzilla
> > java6 support but for static instrumentation.
> >
> > Is it ok with you?
> >
>
> I don't know what exactly did you imply by saying "how it complex for
> testing system of Harmony". From you wrote above my impression that
> you can not provide "specific tests" right now.
>
> And we are going to run 'standard' set of suites to verify the change.
>
> FYI: the first test results of committing HARMONY-5750 is failed
> EHWA_API (integrity testing) on all platforms in all testing modes. It
> potentially may mean that there are serious issues with the update.
> Could you look into [1]?
>
> [1]
> http://people.apache.org/~varlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Evarlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html>
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alexei Fedotov <
> alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Nathan, thanks for a question!
> > >
> > > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? [...] are there
> > > specific tests that could be run to get a general
> > > > assurance of the passivity?
> > >
> > > I was asking Vasily to prepare at least one stand-alone test to be
> > > included (by me) in a Harmony test base. While the whole TPTP requires
> > > VC6, I believe I will be able to recompile the only test with a newer
> > > compiler.
> > >
> > > With best regards, Alexei
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? I'm not intimate
> > > with
> > > >  the verifier; are there specific tests that could be run to get a
> > > general
> > > >  assurance of the passivity?
> > > >
> > > >  -Nathan
> > > >
> > > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750
> > > >
> > > >  On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Vasily Levchenko <
> > > >
> > > > vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > >  > We've finally established source base and launched our test,
> > > demonstrating
> > > >  > stability and reliable of verifier code. would you mind to
> initiate
> > > with
> > > >  > releasing milestone HDK-M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP?
> > > >  >
> > > >  > As I've mentioned earlier but wasn't able point to JIRA (
> > > >  > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750) we're
> extremely
> > > >  > interested this patch to be included.
> > > >  >
> > > >  > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Stepan Mishura <
> > > stepan.mishura@gmail.com<
> > > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > wrote:
> > > >  >
> > > >  > > On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com<
> > >
> https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >  > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura <
> > > >  > > stepan.mishura@gmail.com<
> > > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >  > > > wrote:
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > > > Hi folks,
> > > >  > > > >
> > > >  > > > > As I understood the thread it is doable to make interim
> release
> > > >  > > > > targeted to assist inclusion of Harmony verifier
to the
> nearest
> > > >  > > > > Eclipse TPTP release. Let me share my understanding
of the
> > > request
> > > >  > and
> > > >  > > > > a possible way to resolve it (please correct me if
I'm
> wrong):
> > > The
> > > >  > > > > Eclipse team needs an 'official' (i.e. published
on the
> > > web-site as
> > > >  > > > > milestone build) Harmony release. The Eclipse team
only
> > > interesting
> > > >  > in
> > > >  > > > > changes in verifier since M5 so the main criteria
for the
> > > interim
> > > >  > > > > release is no regressions in verifier functionality
(i.e. I
> > > assume
> > > >  > > > > that not critical regressions are acceptable for
interim
> > > release. I
> > > >  > > > > believe that is important for having a shorten
> > > freeze/test/release
> > > >  > > > > period for the interim release)
> > > >  > > > >
> > > >  > > > > So I think we may consider:
> > > >  > > > > - making sure that all artifacts required are in
place
> (i.e.
> > > >  > committed
> > > >  > > > > to the trunk)
> > > >  > > > > - declaring short code freeze
> > > >  > > > > - running testing cycle to see if there are any issues
with
> > > verifier
> > > >  > > > > and overall code.  (BTW, are there any know issues
with
> > > verifier
> > > >  > that
> > > >  > > > > needs to be fixed?)
> > > >  > > > >
> > > >  > > > > Having said that I thought that we are testing up
to 6
> > > snapshots per
> > > >  > > > > week so we may pick up any interim snapshot that
has
> everything
> > > >  > > > > required and shows good testing results, make it
'official'
> -
> > > i.e.
> > > >  > > > > publish it ... with proper label - M5.5_Eclipse or
> something
> > > else to
> > > >  > > > > avoid confusions and to state clearly that the release
it
> > > targeted
> > > >  > to
> > > >  > > > > the Eclipse TPTP release.
> > > >  > > > >
> > > >  > > > > Does it make sense and works for all parties?
> > > >  > > > >
> > > >  > > > > The only issue that still unclear for me is ABI
> requirements:
> > > has
> > > >  > the
> > > >  > > > > Harmony team build/test the code to satisfy ABI or
you can
> do
> > > it?
> > > >  > > > > (Alexey Petrenko asked this before but I don't see
any
> answer)
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > > I suppose we can do it, but it should be in the released
> package
> > > too.
> > > >  > If
> > > >  > > > we're going to share building of the module how it will
looks
> > > like?
> > > >  > > > 1. you'll give us revision
> > > >  > > > 2. and we'll return the compiled libraries
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > > > or some other way?
> > > >  > > >
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > OK as I see from your answer - the Harmony team has to build
> > > binaries
> > > >  > > that satisfy ABI (because we publish binaries that are created
> only
> > > by
> > > >  > > Harmony committers.)
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > -Stepan.
> > > >  > >
> > > >  > > <SNIP>
> > > >  > >
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  >
> > > >  > --
> > > >  > --vvl
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > With best regards,
> > > Alexei
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --vvl
> >
>



-- 
--vvl

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