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 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:22:56 GMT
Hello folks,
Seems that all star's order is favor and all bugs are fixed to initiate code
freeze. Have anyone got any objections to code freeze begins?

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Vasily Levchenko <
vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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




-- 
--vvl

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