Vladimir, thanks, this is what I observed as well. They are coming from a same bug, and the patch will be submitted in one or two hours, so I don't worry about it. :-)
Thanks, xiaofeng On 4/18/07, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is just my statistics: WinXP, ia32: Classlib tests: passed DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests: java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test; java.lang.reflect.Field5Test; java.lang.reflect.Method5Test; java.lang.ThreadTest; org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest Linux, ia32: Classlib tests: java.awt.font.LineBreakMeasurerTest failed DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests: java.lang.ThrowableTest – hang (int mode) java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test; java.lang.reflect.Field5Test; java.lang.reflect.Method5Test; java.lang.ThreadTest; org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest Linux, em64t: Classlib tests: list of failed tests java.awt.CanvasRTest – hang javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicListUITest - hang javax.swing.JSliderTest javax.swing.JTableRTest javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicFileChooserUITest javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicFormattedTextFieldUITest javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicIconFactoryTest DRLVM tests (int+jet+jit+opt modes): list of failed tests: java.lang.reflect.Ctor5Test; java.lang.reflect.Field5Test; java.lang.reflect.Method5Test; java.lang.ThreadTest; org.apache.harmony.lang.annotation.AllTypesTest and All JVMTI tests using interpreter ------------- SIGSEGV in VM code. Stack trace: 0: jthread_monitor_enter (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/thread/src/thread_java_monitors.c:145) 1: vm_monitor_enter_default (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/thread/mon_enter_exit.cpp:115) 2: vm_monitor_enter_wrapper(ManagedObject*) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/interpreter/interp_imports.cpp:30) 3: Opcode_MONITORENTER(StackFrame&) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:2277) 4: org/apache/harmony/fortress/security/SecurityUtils.putContext(Ljava/lang/Thread;Ljava/security/AccessControlContext;)V (SecurityUtils.java:76) 5: interpreterInvokeStatic (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:3318) 6: Opcode_INVOKESTATIC(StackFrame&) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:2105) 7: java/lang/Thread.<init>(Ljava/lang/ThreadGroup;Ljava/lang/String;JJIZ)V (Thread.java:253) 8: interpreter_execute_method(Method*, jvalue*, jvalue*) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interpreter.cpp:3211) 9: JIT_execute_method (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/interpreter/src/interp_exports.cpp:167) 10: DrlEMImpl::executeMethod(_jmethodID*, jvalue*, jvalue*) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/em/src/DrlEMImpl.cpp:510) 11: ExecuteMethod (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/em/src/em_intf.cpp:44) 12: vm_execute_java_method_array(_jmethodID*, jvalue*, jvalue*) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jit/ini.cpp:56) 13: vm_create_jthread (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/vm_init.cpp:560) 14: vm_attach_internal(JNIEnv_External**, _jobject**, JavaVM_External*, _jobject*, char*, unsigned char) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/vm_init.cpp:601) 15: attach_current_thread (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jni/jni.cpp:1519) 16: AttachCurrentThreadAsDaemon(JavaVM_External*, void**, void*) (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/jni/jni.cpp:1548) 17: finalizer_thread_func (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/vmcore/src/init/finalizer_thread.cpp:204) 18: thread_start_proc (/export/cruise/trunk/cc/projects/drlvm/trunk/vm/thread/src/thread_native_basic.c:716) 19: start_thread (??:-1) <end of stack trace> ------------- thanks, Vladimir On 4/18/07, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that we make GCv5 default a week before the milestone since it > gives us some benefits. > And if we discover any stability or other issues we always can switch > it back before the milestone. > > SY, Alexey > > 2007/4/18, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In addition to specs and eclipse, there are the tests that come with > > "build test". Are there any more tests we are worried about? > > > > I understand the risk of switching before an event, but we will have > > to do it at some point. Not much point in writing it and then not > > using it. Doing it still gives us a few weeks before Java One to see > > if there are problems. How about running it as default for a week > > before we decide? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/17/07, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's quite risky to switch right before the show. > > > Xiao-Feng, what workloads you tried with gcv5 except specs and eclipse? > > > > > > + > > > I'm working on "lazy resolution" task in both JITs now and going to submit > > > the patch this week for > > > review. I think its commit should be delayed for a few weeks until > > > JavaOne is finished. > > > > > > > > > On 4/18/07, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/18/07, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Do you think we should switch before "end of month"? > > > > > > > > Yes, that's my suggestion. > > > > > > > > > It's certainly a risk, but what is the value in the switch? > > > > > > > > The risk is minimal since GCv5 is rather stable, and to the least we > > > > have command line option to switch back; but the value is substantial > > > > since people can have an advanced, scalable, modular, flexible, high > > > > performance GC, which I think both runtime researchers and users would > > > > like to try, based on my interactions with Harmony users. > > > > > > > > To demo Harmony, GC is one component that we'd like to have a good > > > > story to tell. GCv5 can tell a good story since it has subsumed almore > > > > all the recent advances in GC area (for stop-the-world GC), and has a > > > > variable of innovations. Importantly, GCv5 can differentiate > > > > multi-core platforms with its scalable parallelisms. :-) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > xiaofeng > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > > 2007/4/18, Xiao-Feng Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > GCv5 might be one "major" that we want to put as default GC in DRLVM. > > > > > > It still has some issues pending, but overall I think the stability is > > > > > > good enough for a switch next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since GC is designed with good modularity, we can simply choose which > > > > > > GC implementation to use in command line with > > > > > > '-XX:vm.dlls=the_gc_module.dll(so)". This is neat that helps the > > > > > > switch a lot: If GCv5 has some problem running a workload, we can > > > > > > specify -XX:vm.dlls=gc_cc.dll in command line. > > > > > > > > > > > > So far the known bugs in GCv5 are not with some workloads, but related > > > > > > with certain test cases for finalizer and VM threading. And I think > > > > > > they are going to be resolved before next week. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > xiaofeng > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/16/07, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Just a reminder, as discussed in various threads, we shall aim to > > > > > > > produce a solid build for Windows and Linux x86 (at least) at the > > > > end of > > > > > > > next week; so that we have something to demo at ApacheCon and > > > > JavaOne > > > > > > > that is a true reflection of our current capabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, the Milestone will be simply a snapshot, carrying our > > > > usual > > > > > > > caveats. The idea is that with conference talks taking place we may > > > > > > > expect a few people to download a build and try it around that time, > > > > so > > > > > > > being in the middle of a major restructuring would potentially do us > > > > an > > > > > > > injustice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most commits still seem to be on-going bug fixing, so that's all > > > > > > > goodness. If you are planning on anything 'major' please ensure > > > > there > > > > > > > is enough time to get it stable, or please wait until after the > > > > > > > milestone build. Similarly, if there is anything that is currently > > > > > > > 'broken' that you think really needs fixing for that stability, > > > > please > > > > > > > shout here on the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are still two weeks to go, I think the paranoia about not > > > > causing > > > > > > > regressions will really kick-in next week :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mikhail Fursov > > > > > >
-- http://xiao-feng.blogspot.com
