Since many guys reported different regressions, I believe it is good time to delay a bit DRLVM features and optimizations and accept only regression bug fixes. What do you think?
The first thing to do is to understand what's broken. To my understanding the most obvious thing which is broken is Vladimir's CruiseControl which runs tests with DRLVM. I do not see automatic notifications. I believe there are more regressions. For example, in my yesterday's test run 400 class library tests failed on Linux. The guy who descriptively named himself "test" reported the same statistics at http://harmonytest.org. I need some time to stop and mediate about it (and file JIRAs of course). -- Thank you, Alexei On 11/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a small problem with this - seems like we're rushing patches in without much review or discussion. For a while there we were able to test on a few platforms first, lazily, because there was more than 1 hour between patch submission and commit. Was there any on-list discussion about this? did I simply miss it? geir Salikh Zakirov wrote: > Hi, > > DRLVM is broken on Linux/x86_64 (SUSE9) after following commit > > [r478172] Applied HARMONY-2223 [drlvm][jit][performance] Inlined int64 > arithmetic > routines - speedup of 64 arithmetics. Tested on SUSE9, observed ~5% > gain on the microbenchmark. > > with the following diagnostics: > > /files/sszakiro/harmony/drlvm/trunk/vm/port/src/encoder/ia32_em64t/enc_tabl.cpp:1540: > static void EncoderBase::buildMnemonicDesc(const MnemonicInfo*): > Assertion `opcodesHashMap[minfo->mn][hash] == NOHASH' failed. > > This assertion failure is observed on C Unit tests and when trying to > run java with any arguments. >
