harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sian January" <sianjanu...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Declare r711744 as M8
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:46:28 GMT
I would support putting in the fast null-checking fix for M8 and the
proper fix at a later date, because it sounds like that will cause the
least instability to the codebase for M8.



2008/11/12 chunrong lai <chunronglai@gmail.com>:
> 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
>> >
>>
>



-- 
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