Alexei,
On 7/9/07, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nina, It was nothing was to be sorry about. :-) I was just trying to understand your concern myself. I believe we should pay attention to the difference if it prevents any applications from running. There are too much arbitrary differences to pay attention to each of them. For example, Sun's verifier is shipped in a form of DLL which allows BEA to use it . We don't ship our verifier in a form of DLL. This is a difference, but we don't file JIRA issue about it. From the other side behavior difference might be serious if it impacts something seriously. If you think this incompatibility has a serious impact, just indicate the impact and the incompatibility will be addressed.
That's just what I would like to ask here. :) But I agree that the behavior difference is not so serious and it's better not to comply with wrong behavior. Thanks.
On 7/9/07, Nina Rinskaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexei, > > Sorry for misleading you. I agree that it's ok to forget about the issue > because there is the Eclipse compiler bug describing this issue. I was just > confused by Harmony and Sun verifiers behavior difference, but it's not a > Harmony issue. > > -- > Nina > > On 7/6/07, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nina, > > > > > but also Sun's verifier bug > > Mmm, I'm not sure I follow. Isn't it enough to have a bug against > > Eclipse compiler to forget about this issue? > > > > Thank you, Alexei > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Nina Rinskaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alexei, > > > > > > I'm just not sure how we track compatibility issues if there is a > > difference > > > in Harmony and RI behavior. Is it now proven that it's not only Eclipse > > > Compiler, but also Sun's verifier bug? If yes, I agree that it's not > > > necessary to reopen the issue. > > > > > > -- > > > Nina > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nina, > > > > > > > > Eclipse bug owner confirmed that this was an issue with the compiler. > > > > Why do you want to reopen the issue against DRLVM? > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On 7/6/07, Nina Rinskaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I'm writing this just to bring your attention to > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3862 and ask > > drlvm/verifier > > > > > people to see whether it's necessary to reopen it. > > > > > > > > > > It says about VerifyError trown by Harmony when running a class > > compiled > > > > by > > > > > Eclipse Compiler. It was closed as 'Cannot Reproduced', but it is > > > > actually > > > > > reproduced (see HARMONY-3862 comments). It looks that it's not > > Harmony > > > > > issue, but Eclipse compiler issue (I opened the bug against Eclipse > > > > > compiler: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=194398), and > > RI > > > > > issue (it should also throw VerifyError, but it doesn't). But still > > we > > > > have > > > > > different behavior on RI and Harmony implementations. > > > > > > > > > > So could someone take care of this issue and probably reopen it as > > > > > compatibility issue if it makes sense? Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Nina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > With best regards, > > > > Alexei, > > > > ESSD, Intel > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > With best regards, > > Alexei, > > ESSD, Intel > > > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
