On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I ran the tests locally and they passed.
So you applied your fix and all these 15 failed tests passed. Correct?
> Though, a number of other
> tests failed, I assumed, due to assertions absent in your release
> build.
>
Hmm, you assumed that tests results for debug and release builds are
different but this also IMHO may mean other regressions in verifier.
BTW, I don't see any regression test in the patch. Does it make sense
to create it and add it to DRLVM reg. test suite?
Thanks,
Stepan.
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Stepan Mishura
> <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Stenan,
> > > Sorry. I have fixed VTS verifier test failures:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~smishura/r650380/Windows_x86/vtsvm/junit/index.html
> > >
> >
> > So all 15 tests failed because of this bug. Correct?
> >
> > -Stepan.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Stepan Mishura
> > > <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Alexei,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hello Stepan,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have fixed more verifier failures, see
> > > >
> > > > Which failures did you fix? HARMONY-5785 description doesn't mention
any.
> > > >
> > > > -Stepan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Stepan Mishura
> > > > > <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 4/22/08, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> > > > > > > > As far as I understand Eclipse IP committee needs
a revision number to
> > > > > > > > be supplied (no binaries involved).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apologies, I missed that point in the discussions around
compiler level etc.
> > > > > > > If it is simply a well-defined revision of the verifier
code then that is
> > > > > > > quite different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The favour Vasily is asking about
> > > > > > > > is providing him with a slightly tested revision.
This would suppress
> > > > > > > > a normal work of committers for one day. Is it
something we cannot
> > > > > > > > afford?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, in that area of the code I think it is quite
reasonable. It
> > > > > > > would not prevent people working in the other areas
of Harmony (such as GC,
> > > > > > > JIT, and class library).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, freezing only verifier code can be a compromise in this
case.
> > > > > > But I think it makes sense for other areas to ask people
not commit
> > > > > > risky changes (i.e. make feature freeze and commit only bug
fixes) -
> > > > > > it will help with detection and resolution of possible verifier
> > > > > > regressions. I believe that this acceptable too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could I ask all folks interesting in M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP release
to look
> > > > > > through tests failures to understand if there are regressions
in the
> > > > > > verifier or not?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tests results for r650380 are almost ready [1] (testing the
next
> > > > > > r650564 snapshot will be launched in 2-3 hours). If there
are no
> > > > > > regressions then I think r650380 (or r650564) can be promoted
as
> > > > > > M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP. If you find verifier regression please
let
> > > > > > everybody know ASAP - it should be fixed quickly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r650380/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Stepan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course, we cannot prevent the revision number of
the entire repository
> > > > > > > changing over time, but you could nominate a givne revision
number for the
> > > > > > > verifier code to be taken by Eclipse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did I understand this right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Tim
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm really not convinced this is a good idea
for Harmony, and my
> > > > > > > concerns
> > > > > > > > > are in two parts:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) Our schedule should not be dictated by
an external project,
> > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > when it is their process that seems to be
setting the artificial time
> > > > > > > limit.
> > > > > > > > > Why not show some flexibility to meet our
dates?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) Our principle delivery mechanism is source
code. While we make
> > > > > > > binaries
> > > > > > > > > available as a convenience we should not encourage
dependents to put
> > > > > > > > > dependencies on our build tools. They should
take source and compile it
> > > > > > > > > themselves for their own environment.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Tim
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vasily Levchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > $subj.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > With best regards,
> > > > > Alexei
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > With best regards,
> > > Alexei
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Alexei
>
|