harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Declare r711744 as M8
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:12:21 GMT
Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Want non-committer opinion? :) 

Of course!

> Though I'm the performance guy and have
> a clue on the cost of adding additional check to monitor_enter, I'm
> voting for applying null checking code into the stub, then looking
> into JIT regression. If Buqi will find the clean way to teach JIT to
> do the right things before M8 is released, then just enroll Buqi's
> patch. But whatever way it is, this is severe bug and it shouldn't
> occur on milestone build. Correctness is more important here.

+1

> BTW, would Chunrong have to re-run the tests from scratch after fixing
> HARMONY-6013?

Not if the change is local enough that Buqi (or whoever writes it) is
confident that targeted testing is going to be enough for this one
patch.  If it is a design/architectural change then yes we would restart
the testing.

Regards,
Tim

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM, chunrong lai <chunronglai@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi, Tim:
>>    The severe uncaught NullPointerException comes with the stub of
>> vm_rt_monitor_enter. Originally we have two null checkings with that. The
>> first one is just before the stub and is controled by JIT. The second is
>> inside the stub. So we had not met the reported exception.
>>    A commit in May (r659128) removeed the null checking (and exception
>> throwing) inside the stub when doing some optimizations (for HARMONY-5714).
>> Now we find that the null checking before the stub will also be removed
>> after some aggressive optimizations. I talked with buqi and he thought that
>> JIT should never remove such null checking and he is also trying to prepare
>> a patch to fix this issue.
>>    I think we can have a fast and safe fix for this uncaught exception by
>> simply adding the null checking code bak to the stub. In this way M8 will
>> run just like M6, M5 etc. Are there other committers supporting this? We can
>> also wait for Buqi's (real) fix in JIT to remove the uncaught exception in
>> M8.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> chunrong lai wrote:
>>>> I can reproduce the error.
>>>> Zhiguo mentioned that we need to reproduce the error with -Xem:opt or
>>>> -Xem:server.
>>> Do we know what the fix is for this?
>>>
>>> Just wondering if this is a candidate for inclusion in M8, since it was
>>> a regression since M6.  If the patch would not invalidate the results of
>>> our long running tests then I would like us to consider it since the
>>> crash is severe.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Got it -- thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone else reproduce HARMONY-6013 [1] ?  It works for me with a
>>>>> simple test, but if others see a failure that would be a pretty bad
>>>>> regression...
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6013
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> chunrong lai wrote:
>>>>>>  Thanks. I am uploading the snapshots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Sian January <
>>>>> sianjanuary@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> Chunrong, are you able to make these available?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2008/11/10 Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>  > Sian January wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The testing cycle for r710036 [1] has been completed
and the test
>>>>>>>>> results have been discussed [2].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two bug fixes [3,4] have been committed since r710036
that we want
>>> to
>>>>>>>>> include in M8. r711744 has not been through the extended
testing
>>>>>>>>> cycle, but has been through the standard integrity testing
cycle
>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the same results as r710036.[5]
>>>>>>>> Where are the r711744 builds?  I don't see them on the snapshots
>>>>>>>> download page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have to vote on the actual archive bundle, not just a
SVN tag.
>>>>>>>> I'd like to take a look and do a final sanity check.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As usual there are some long-standing issues and a few
new ones, but
>>>>>>>>> nothing that has been considederd critical so far.  Overall
the pass
>>>>>>>>> rate is better than M7.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If anyone thinks that a particular issue is a blocker
for M8 please
>>>>> say
>>>>>>> so here.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, shall we declare r711744 as M8 and unfreeze
the code
>>> base?
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>> http://people.apache.org/~chunrong/snapshots/r710036/index.html
>>>>>>>>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/l72lba7xehacqyku
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [3] http://markmail.org/message/6fxgpa2azv27zsol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/ljqwytbegtsfou2g
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [5] http://people.apache.org/~chunrong/harmony-integrity/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with
>>> number
>>>>>>> 741598.
>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6
>>>>> 3AU
> 

Mime
View raw message