Ivan, I added fixing patch for HARMONY-3081.
Option -Xfuture is recognized by VM now, but do nothing. It could be changed later. On 30/01/07, Ivan Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks, Pavel. I hope this will resolve problem with Java profiler (HARMONY-2905). I think we should also enable option -Xfuture, which is currently rejected by DRLVM, because Java developers may use it in their scripts and environment. I submitted HARMONY-3081, could you please look at it. Thanks. Ivan On 1/30/07, Pavel Rebriy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let I try to explain how verifications are working. There are 3 modes of > DRLVM verifier: > > 1. Default mode – without any VM control options > > In this mode DRLVM verifier should be compatible with RI default mode. > > 2. With options "–verify" or "–Xverify" > > This mode is supposed to verify more strict checks of class file format > (such as correct naming of fields and methods in constant pool), besides > expects verification of classes loaded by bootstrap classloader. > > 3. With options "-Xverify:all" > > This mode is supposed to more strict verification of classes (such as > interface classes' verification). > > Because reference VM doesn't support verification of 'uninitialized this' > class reference under exception handler protection I'm going to move it to > mode 3, so check this verification only if option –Xverify:all is set. > > Such behavior should be compatible with reference VM. > > > On 22/01/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Gregory Shimansky wrote: > > > > > Ivan Popov wrote: > > >> I'd like to discuss the problem with Eclipse TPTP profiler working > > >> with DRLVM, which is described in HARMONY-2905 [1]. The problem is > > > > > > There is always a workaround to verifier exceptions. You can run > > > the program with -Xverify:none to disable verifier completely. > > > Turning this particular check is simple too. The question is > > > whether this should be a default mode in VM or whether it should be > > > enabled by some special option which doesn't disable all other > > > verifications. > > > > > > > I'm also darn curious why Sun's verifier doesn't have the problem... > > > > geir > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Pavel Rebriy > >
-- Best regards, Pavel Rebriy
