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: [drlvm][class loading] erroneous entry due to different signature
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:57:48 GMT
Nathan, yes, your understanding is correct. I deleted an assertion and
the test started producing NoSuchMethodError. BTW, thanks to your
question, I have fixed class NoSuchMethodException to
NoSuchMethodError in an explanatory comment in the patch.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> Just so I understand, the resolution is that the assertion was incorrect. Is
>  that correct?
>
>  -Nathan
>
>  On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
>
>
> wrote:
>
>  > The issue is resolved in HARMONY-5797. Pavel, could you please take a
>  > look?
>  > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5797
>  >
>  > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Alexei Fedotov
>  > <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > > Sorry, not so easy.
>  > >
>  > >  On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Alexei Fedotov
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >  > For a java guru the following code demonstrates the problem. The
>  > >  >  following works perfectly on Sun's VM (though it does not compile
>  > >  >  well):
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  public class T1 implements I {
>  > >  >     public void t(int p) {
>  > >  >     }
>  > >  >
>  > >  >     public static void main(String args[]) {
>  > >  >         (new T1()).t(0);
>  > >  >     }
>  > >  >  }
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  interface I {
>  > >  >     void t(Object p);
>  > >  >  }
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  This might be a way to convert an integer to a direct reference. :-)
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Alexei Fedotov
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >  >  > 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<http://people.apache.org/%7Esmishura/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<http://people.apache.org/%7Emloenko/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
>  > >  >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >  --
>  > >  >  With best regards,
>  > >  >  Alexei
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  --
>  > >  With best regards,
>  > >  Alexei
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > With best regards,
>  > Alexei
>  >
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message