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 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:20:47 GMT
Vasily,
I'm installing testing to reproduce
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5764

Do you need it fixed? It would take some time. Or do you want
releasing things as is?
Thanks.


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Vasily Levchenko
<vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message