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: [M9] Testing - outstanding issues
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:25:07 GMT
Done at r758244.

Dacapo works for me now

\Harmony\deploy\jdk\jre\bin\java.exe -jar dacapo-2006-10-MR2.jar eclipse
===== DaCapo eclipse starting =====
<setting up workspace...>
<creating
projects..............................................................>
<running tests at level 0...>
<performing build tests...>
        org.apache.ant (not open) opening cleaning building
        org.junit (not open) opening cleaning building
        org.eclipse.osgi (not open) opening cleaning building
<performing type hierarchy tests...>
        Hierarchy: org.eclipse.help.internal HelpPlugin
<performing AST tests...>
        AST creation: org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.parser
<performing completion tests...>
        Completion: Completion>Name>Empty
        Completion: Completion>Name>Empty>No Method
<performing search tests...>
        Searching: indexing
===== DaCapo eclipse PASSED in 43657 msec =====

Regards,
Tim

Oliver Deakin wrote:
> Ill second the rollback for M9.
> 
> Regards,
> Oliver
> 
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Regis wrote:
>>  
>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Regis wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> Sian January wrote:
>>>>>        
>>>>>> 8. Dacapo benchmark failure HARMONY-6041
>>>>>>           
>>>>> I have found the cause of this regression, and had a initial patch,
>>>>> but
>>>>> still has 1 test failure in WinFileTest. So I suggest revert
>>>>> r727327 if
>>>>> it blocked M9.
>>>>>         
>>>> Yes, I think that we should probably roll back r727327 and re-open
>>>> HARMONY-6041.
>>>>       
>>> Agree. We have a lot of duplicated code which dealing with path name,
>>> we'll have enough time to refactor it in next milestone.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> It seems that the patch was not sufficient, and the subsequent attempts
>>>> to fix things (HARMONY-6090, HARMONY-6091, HARMONY-6092) have not been
>>>> applied, and may cause further disruption.
>>>>
>>>> Since the original problem was found by inspection, I propose we leave
>>>> it as a known issue with M9 and try again after the code freeze.
>>>>       
>>> +1
>>>     
>>
>> Any committers second the proposal to rollback?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>   
> 

Mime
View raw message