On the 0x299 day of Apache Harmony Vera Y. Petrashkova wrote: > Here are the results of VTS tests running: > 4320 VTS tests were run > 4183 - passed on DRLVM > 4234 - passed on DRLVM with alternative bytecode verifier
thanks a lot! > Thanks, > Vera Petrashkova > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Petrashkova, Vera Y [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:52 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-3363) [DRLVM] contribution of > >alternative bytecode verifier > > > >Cool! > > > >Do I understand correct that VTS tests [1] that currently fail because > >of unimplemented subroutine verification will now pass? > > > >I'm going to run the DRLVM VTS to check how it impacts the pass rate > > > >Thanks, > >Vera > > > >[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3206 > > > >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>From: Mikhail Loenko (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Date: 12.03.2007 16:55 > >>Subject: [jira] Created: (HARMONY-3363) [DRLVM] contribution of > >>alternative bytecode verifier > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >>[DRLVM] contribution of alternative bytecode verifier > >>----------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Key: HARMONY-3363 > >> URL: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3363 > >> Project: Harmony > >> Issue Type: New Feature > >> Components: Contributions > >> Reporter: Mikhail Loenko > >> > >> > >>This is contribution of experimental bytecode verifier on behalf of > >Intel. > >> > >>"Experimental" means that there is no formal proof currently available > >>of its equivalence to the step-by-step verification algorithm > >>described in the spec. > >> > >>The only known difference to the conventional verifier is dead code > >>verification: RI makes stricter checks against dead code. > >>Since it's about dead code, this difference does not affect > >vulnerability > >> > >>Comparing to the current Harmony verifier, this one is supposed to be > >>complete (Harmony currently does not support jsr/ret verification) and > >>much faster > >> > >>So, I'm attaching 3 files: > >> > >>The first one: Verifier_bulk.zip is a bulk contribution on behalf of > >>Intel for archiving purposes. It contains the legal files as well > >> > >>The second one: Verifier_patch is my fix to the bugs that I found > >>while the first archive was coming thru legal > >> > >>The third archive Verifier_patched.zip is a merge for previous two. > >>It's an up-to-date version for all the engineering purposes > >> > >>To try it out one should replace the current 'verifier' directory in > >>vm with the new one and rebuild > >> > >>-- > >>This message is automatically generated by JIRA. > >>- > >>You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. > -- Egor Pasko
