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 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:01:39 GMT
Thank you Alexei,
Was rest of the tests are passed?
Which revision can we use for IP scan?

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I found a bug. int32 return type of read_int32 was incorrectly
> replaced with Address. Will submit a patch when kids permit.
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Alexei Fedotov
> <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Could you please attach javap result of affected class ?
> >
> >  Method name:"WM_MOUSEACTIVATE" Signature:
> >  569=(int,int)org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.LRESULT
> >  Attribute "Code", length:605, max_stack:3, max_locals:9,
> code_length:317
> >   0: aload_0
> >   1: iload_1
> >   2: iload_2
> >   3: invokespecial #1157=<Method
> >  org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Decorations.WM_MOUSEACTIVATE
> >  (int,int)org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.LRESULT>
> >   6: astore_3
> >   7: aload_3
> >   8: ifnull 13
> >   11: aload_3
> >   12: areturn
> >   13: iload_2
> >   14: ldc_w #476=<Integer 65535>
> >   17: iand
> >   18: i2s
> >   19: istore 4
> >   21: iload 4
> >   23: tableswitch low=-2, high=0, default=51
> >         -2: 48
> >         -1: 48
> >          0: 48
> >   48: goto 165
> >   51: aload_0
> >   52: getfield #1015=<Field org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.display
> >  org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display>
> >   55: invokevirtual #1175=<Method
> >  org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display._getFocusControl
> >  ()org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control>
> >   58: astore 5
> >  [...]
> >
> >
>  org/eclipse/swt/widgets/Shell/WM_MOUSEACTIVATE(II)Lorg/eclipse/swt/internal/win32/LRESULT;,
> >  pass: 1, instr: 23, reason: compound instruction: method length is
> >  less than required
> >
> >  I believe negative numbers are now converted to big unsigned after
> >  recent type changes. Sorry for regression, I'm looking into this.
> >
> >  On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Vasily Levchenko
> >
> >
> > <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > 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>
> <
> 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
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  With best regards,
> >  Alexei
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Alexei
>



-- 
--vvl

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