Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.249 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=pyE4lEJzVDvHIzKfPrigyefQ1/A8k4yw62Hrp42WQIZbcdMmfjjVBJZc1e0mG4014SH5rHokGkhzp66DI1uvx3sGz6DG/2l/jOxQTCsGZ8+MXlIrR6/q9UFjYpClj4W15Od5P0nql0mTTOyjUUEUw+y3Sq2ht0gJod1ovK5IKBQ=
Message-ID: <14ecfd680804190103j7df0435i4520a00f089e72e9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:03:46 +0400
From: "Vasily Levchenko" <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: Releasing scheduling
In-Reply-To: <c30d70960804190046y26af10ddw765f56cdf8c2b9a3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_6257_32892377.1208592226679"
References: <14ecfd680804111056q535bb1f8g44ebeeaa2b334ddb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <14ecfd680804132155r20acb60dvd7892ca5d8cb70a5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6e47b64f0804132215o561803e5ldcb35bab2432e3f6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <14ecfd680804171222x75c580dej77181f2ad921315c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3b3f27c60804171827p66baf474se0a91b96d7916aea@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960804172334h3a3763bfw7802cbb4e4e91f38@mail.gmail.com>
	 <14ecfd680804180831kfc17623uc4802a3db460beb0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6e47b64f0804180949m6793bcaby1fad5344c5a89e8d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <14ecfd680804181007i5576435dvcd02de2c30cdfe0b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c30d70960804190046y26af10ddw765f56cdf8c2b9a3@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_6257_32892377.1208592226679
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I've checked other workload with our combined solution and filed an issue (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5764). Could anyone on the
list look at issue.

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
>


-- 
--vvl

------=_Part_6257_32892377.1208592226679--