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 209.85.132.251 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=t8XQg9CogIsHKMEH7VZnQCtXzCS6BNnRkvj76qZp68ICIjqm1so+xGtCE/ev5F0D4YoHRGk1OKJG4Uvm4DrvHPJdxMs+urVGrh/Hj2GMhagelJO/uw/RO/tucavPayf6sN+wFS1DWN26X3NtEPA3C9DFQbWhZ2AliUVbUxokJYA=
Message-ID: <14ecfd680804200930xad5325dm10c5cef015f1bd06@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:30:17 +0400
From: "Vasily Levchenko" <vasily.v.levchenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [drlvm][verifier-ext] need a test Was: Releasing scheduling
In-Reply-To: <c30d70960804200001r6001c71yde904764b314dcf6@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_8866_33254332.1208709017870"
References: <c30d70960804200001r6001c71yde904764b314dcf6@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_8866_33254332.1208709017870
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello Alexei,
Currently java 6 support isn't integrated in Probekit and BCI engine because
its current implementation rely on Harmony verifier are going to release ;).
Patches to BCI introduces implementation of java 6 support and code for
initialization of dynamic agent using instrumentation like Call Graph, Heap,
thread and Dynamic Probekit profiler agent. Static instrumentator wasn't
supposed to be introduced in this work. But I suppose it's the simplest way
to verify work of extension of verifier on instrumented code.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Vasily,
>
> I'm trying to understand how to made the simple verifier extension
> test from your static instrumentator. Or, in other words, I'm trying
> to understand the verifier extension interface and how to reproduce
> your bug [1]. I downloaded the probekit sources from dev.eclipse.org
> and tried to understand how do they use a verifier extension:
>
>  $  cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/tptp co
> platform/org.eclipse.hyades.probekit
>  $ grep -rI recompute_stackmaptable platform/
>
> I cannot find anything. I started to think that your patch to the bug
> report [2] may contain stack map re-computation example and checked
> your attachments. But it seems that the recompute_stackmaptable
> function is missed there as well. Could you please give more
> directions? For example, could you point to the part of your work
> related to the stack map re-computation? I also wonder if
> recompute_stackmaptable is a part of public interfaces, or I should
> look for something else.
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Alexei
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5764
> [2] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM, 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?
> >
> >  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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards,
> Alexei
>


-- 
--vvl

------=_Part_8866_33254332.1208709017870--