harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Releasing scheduling
Date Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:46:36 GMT
> 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>
>
>
> >
>  > 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

Mime
View raw message