Hello folks, Have you got any updates about commitment of H-5750<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750>.
About testing. We've discussed it with some folks, but I don't know how it complex for testing system of Harmony. Actually the functionality we need is used for recalculating stack maps after instrumentation. There is a subproject of TPTP called Probekit that injects probes into compiled code. But for re-calculation requires valid JNI pointer (you can find some details in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629). So minimize test it possible re-use static instrumentator with introduced in the same bugzilla java6 support but for static instrumentation. Is it ok with you? On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan, thanks for a question! > > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? [...] are there > specific tests that could be run to get a general > > assurance of the passivity? > > I was asking Vasily to prepare at least one stand-alone test to be > included (by me) in a Harmony test base. While the whole TPTP requires > VC6, I believe I will be able to recompile the only test with a newer > compiler. > > With best regards, Alexei > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? I'm not intimate > with > > the verifier; are there specific tests that could be run to get a > general > > assurance of the passivity? > > > > -Nathan > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750 > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Vasily Levchenko < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > We've finally established source base and launched our test, > demonstrating > > > stability and reliable of verifier code. would you mind to initiate > with > > > releasing milestone HDK-M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP? > > > > > > As I've mentioned earlier but wasn't able point to JIRA ( > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750) we're extremely > > > interested this patch to be included. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Stepan Mishura < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]< > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]< > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]< > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I understood the thread it is doable to make interim release > > > > > > targeted to assist inclusion of Harmony verifier to the nearest > > > > > > Eclipse TPTP release. Let me share my understanding of the > request > > > and > > > > > > a possible way to resolve it (please correct me if I'm wrong): > The > > > > > > Eclipse team needs an 'official' (i.e. published on the > web-site as > > > > > > milestone build) Harmony release. The Eclipse team only > interesting > > > in > > > > > > changes in verifier since M5 so the main criteria for the > interim > > > > > > release is no regressions in verifier functionality (i.e. I > assume > > > > > > that not critical regressions are acceptable for interim > release. I > > > > > > believe that is important for having a shorten > freeze/test/release > > > > > > period for the interim release) > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think we may consider: > > > > > > - making sure that all artifacts required are in place (i.e. > > > committed > > > > > > to the trunk) > > > > > > - declaring short code freeze > > > > > > - running testing cycle to see if there are any issues with > verifier > > > > > > and overall code. (BTW, are there any know issues with > verifier > > > that > > > > > > needs to be fixed?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Having said that I thought that we are testing up to 6 > snapshots per > > > > > > week so we may pick up any interim snapshot that has everything > > > > > > required and shows good testing results, make it 'official' - > i.e. > > > > > > publish it ... with proper label - M5.5_Eclipse or something > else to > > > > > > avoid confusions and to state clearly that the release it > targeted > > > to > > > > > > the Eclipse TPTP release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense and works for all parties? > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue that still unclear for me is ABI requirements: > has > > > the > > > > > > Harmony team build/test the code to satisfy ABI or you can do > it? > > > > > > (Alexey Petrenko asked this before but I don't see any answer) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose we can do it, but it should be in the released package > too. > > > If > > > > > we're going to share building of the module how it will looks > like? > > > > > 1. you'll give us revision > > > > > 2. and we'll return the compiled libraries > > > > > > > > > > or some other way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK as I see from your answer - the Harmony team has to build > binaries > > > > that satisfy ABI (because we publish binaries that are created only > by > > > > Harmony committers.) > > > > > > > > -Stepan. > > > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > --vvl > > > > > > > > > -- > With best regards, > Alexei > -- --vvl
