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 13:22:48 GMT
Presumably with option (2) we would still run the Harmony Classlib and
DRLVM test suites as part of the build?  If so, then (2) would be my

2008/11/12 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>:
> Tim, I see the good point in your explanation too.
> So we need to consider three options:
>  Option 1. Go with r711744 as M8. It is already tested, so just solidify build.
>  Option 2. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, presume the
> impact locality, solidify the build.
>  Option 3. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, re-spin the
> tests, solidify the build.
> I'm voting for (3). I would be glad to be proved wrong on my concerns,
> actually I would be pleased with that :)
> Maybe just arrange a vote again?
> Thanks,
> Aleksey.
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Can you think of a situation when the null check will introduce some
>>>> instability or regression?
>>> I actually persuaded by Chunrong's point -- that's double checking, so
>>> no problems should occur.
>>> As for introducing new bugs, consider the issue described in
>>> HARMONY-6013 is really covering some other deadly issue. Consider the
>>> workload where NPE is not firing because of H6013,
>> ...but the test doesn't silently work without the NPE, it causes a trap.
>> So we know that our tests don't currently cover the situation where we
>> would now expect to get a NPE, or they would be trapping today, right?
>>> so after H6013 gets
>>> fixed the control flow in that workload is going differ than in tested
>>> M8. As many uses of the helper, as many the chances the control flow
>>> differs. Having that, we can't say the change is minor.
>> I appreciate that the code will appear in many places, but I think it is
>> localized and we know the situation doesn't occur in current testing.
>> That said, I'd rather run the two days + testing again rather than spend
>> two days arguing about it :-)
>>> If I will be
>>> able eventually to say that similar changes are "limited
>>> impact"-issues, then you should employ me as oracle tester <g> :)
>> lol
>>> Of course, that's the speculation if this is actually a double null checking.
>>> I just want not to guess while talking about milestones.
>> ack - like I said, if people think we should re-spin the build and
>> retest, then I'm ok with that too.  It would be the conservative approach.
>> Regards,
>> Tim

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

View raw message