harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [M9] Proposed patch for last blocker
Date Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:40:31 GMT
I just ran the concurrent tests with M8 and I see the same tests failing 
(some intermittently) along with some others, so I do not believe these 
are regressions in M9. Based on these failures not being regressions, 
and all other tests passing, I'd be happy to progress with declaring M9.

Regards,
Oliver

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Oliver Deakin wrote:
>   
>> All the tests pass for me except 2 errors and 8 failures in the
>> concurrent tests. I don't know if theyre new or not - does anybody else
>> see them?
>>     
>
> I see some of these too (see HARMONY-6137).
>
> Are they regressions or do these fail for you the same way on M8?
>
> I still have a mind to press ahead with declaring M9 and opening the
> code up again for new fixes.  So I'm going to focus only on regressions
> for now.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>   
>> AbstractQueuedSynchronizerTest
>>   testAcquireInterruptibly1
>>
>> AtomicLongArrayTest
>>   testCompareAndSet
>>   testCountingInMultipleThreads
>>
>> AtomicLongFieldUpdaterTest
>>   testCompareAndSet
>>
>> AtomicLongTest
>>   testCompareAndSet
>>
>> FutureTaskTest
>>   testTimedGet_InterruptedException2
>>
>> LinkedBlockingQueueTest
>>   testTimedOffer
>>
>> ReentrantLockTest
>>   testLockInterruptibly1
>>   testAwaitUninterruptibly
>>
>> ReentrantReadWriteLockTest
>>   testAwaitUninterruptibly
>>
>> It looks like some of them failed in M8 [1], and most appear to be
>> intermittent (I sometimes get a different set of failures from one run
>> to the next). They fail on both J9 and DRLVM.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/harmony-dev/200811.mbox/%3cf9761b910811070705r3b3409cagce1dc0af3d7249f4@mail.gmail.com%3e
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>     
>>> Regis wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> With this patch applied all the tests pass for me on Windows and Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not figured out why we have this function that doesn't go
>>>>> through
>>>>>  the port library, and therefore doesn't deal with the invalid file
>>>>> handles and interrupts etc. properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this is the minimal patch to fix M9, I propose we go with this,
>>>>> and then continue the networking code tidy up in the next phase.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking for people to test this patch and a committer to approve
it
>>>>> being applied to the code base now.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> +1
>>>> It passed all luni and rmi tests on Ubuntu 8.04.2.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I've applied the patch at r761237.
>>>
>>> I'll wait a short time to let people do additional testing before
>>> calling for the M9 vote.  Fingers and toes crossed now <g>.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
>   

-- 
Oliver Deakin
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