harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Xiao-Feng Li <xiaofeng...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [M9] Proposed patch for last blocker
Date Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:54:32 GMT
It should not impact GC performance. And the patch has only positive
impact in my opinion. So +1...


On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the 0x588 day of Apache Harmony Tim Ellison wrote:
>> 2009/4/3 Egor Pasko <egor.pasko@gmail.com>:
>>> On the 0x588 day of Apache Harmony Oliver Deakin wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> +1
>> Egor, I just tested your HARMONY-6137 patch, and it fixes all these
>> concurrent failures for me.
>> I'll leave it up to your judgment about whether it is safe to apply in
>> the closing moments of M9 (but it would be nice to have these
>> resolved).
> yey! I did not quite expect it to fix all failures :)
> the patch is trivial (telling GCC that the assembly touches memory,
> which it really does!). It may affect (GC) performance, but even if it
> does correctness is more important.
> so I am +1 to commit it.
> --
> Egor Pasko


View raw message