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: [drlvm][verifier-ext] need a test Was: Releasing scheduling
Date Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:30:17 GMT
Hello Alexei,
Currently java 6 support isn't integrated in Probekit and BCI engine because
its current implementation rely on Harmony verifier are going to release ;).
Patches to BCI introduces implementation of java 6 support and code for
initialization of dynamic agent using instrumentation like Call Graph, Heap,
thread and Dynamic Probekit profiler agent. Static instrumentator wasn't
supposed to be introduced in this work. But I suppose it's the simplest way
to verify work of extension of verifier on instrumented code.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Vasily,
>
> I'm trying to understand how to made the simple verifier extension
> test from your static instrumentator. Or, in other words, I'm trying
> to understand the verifier extension interface and how to reproduce
> your bug [1]. I downloaded the probekit sources from dev.eclipse.org
> and tried to understand how do they use a verifier extension:
>
>  $  cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/tptp co
> platform/org.eclipse.hyades.probekit
>  $ grep -rI recompute_stackmaptable platform/
>
> I cannot find anything. I started to think that your patch to the bug
> report [2] may contain stack map re-computation example and checked
> your attachments. But it seems that the recompute_stackmaptable
> function is missed there as well. Could you please give more
> directions? For example, could you point to the part of your work
> related to the stack map re-computation? I also wonder if
> recompute_stackmaptable is a part of public interfaces, or I should
> look for something else.
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Alexei
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5764
> [2] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM, 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?
> >
> >  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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Alexei
>



-- 
--vvl

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