harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject [drlvm][class loading] erroneous entry due to different signature
Date Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:57:05 GMT
Hello Java and class loading gurus,
The JIT reported an assertion due to an error flag on the following entry.

25=org.apache.harmony.vts.test.vm.jvms.instructions.invokeReturn.invokeinterface.invokeinterface07.invokeinterface0703.invokeinterface0703pInterface
name_and_type: 24=<virtualMethod (short)int>

Well, the corresponding interface defined a method with (int)int
signature, which does not match (short)int.  Later the interface
method (int)int is called as (short)int:

invokeinterface #2=<InterfaceMethod
org.apache.harmony.vts.test.vm.jvms.instructions.invokeReturn.invokeinterface.invokeinterface07.invokeinterface0703.invokeinterface0703pInterface.virtualMethod
(short)int> nargs:2

>From the other side the test runs smoothly on RI and our VM in release
mode. Why RI tolerates these two mismatches and runs without
exception? Should we implement automatic int to short conversion for
interfaces?

Thanks.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Fedotov
<alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Correct. 15 tests passed. As for your suggestion of adding a
>  regression test, I'm not yet convinced we should duplicate VTS tests
>  as regression tests.
>
>  BTW, I have evaluated the other problem a bit. The problem is due to
>  the virtual method constant pool entry resolution. Does this ring a
>  bell?
>
>  #2: InterfaceMethodref class:
>  25=org.apache.harmony.vts.test.vm.jvms.instructions.invokeReturn.invokeinterface.invokeinterface07.invokeinterface0703.invokeinterface0703pInterface
>  name_and_type: 24=<virtualMethod (short)int>
>
>  This is still a regression, but probably an older one (since all your
>  runs use a release build).
>
>  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Stepan Mishura
>
>
> <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > 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
>  >  >
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  With best regards,
>  Alexei
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message