Could you please attach javap result of affected class ? On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/18/08, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? > > > > I don't know what exactly did you imply by saying "how it complex for > testing system of Harmony". From you wrote above my impression that > you can not provide "specific tests" right now. > > And we are going to run 'standard' set of suites to verify the change. > > FYI: the first test results of committing HARMONY-5750 is failed > EHWA_API (integrity testing) on all platforms in all testing modes. It > potentially may mean that there are serious issues with the update. > Could you look into [1]? > > [1] > http://people.apache.org/~varlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Evarlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html> > > Thanks, > Stepan. > > > 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 > > > -- --vvl
