*From:*Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]>
*Sent:* 25 August 2025 14:31
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can be solved with Dom Wise's
patch (Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the hang
Judging from the results on Jenkins this patch did not cause any failures, hence marking the
reported bug (https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/2030/) as being fixed.
---rony
On 24.08.2025 11:02, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 23.08.2025 23:30, [email protected] wrote:
Attached is the diff for the full fix (from clean svn 13006 ) which
only nudges the
dispatch queue once.
+1
Thank you very much, Dom, kudos!
Tested it against the ooRexx test suite on my Windows machine which passes.
Also tested it against the JavaFX ooRexx application
(BSF4ooRexx850\samples\JavaFX\MainApp.rex) under Java 8LTS, 17LTS and 24,
which now
thankfully works again, which is really *great*!
Will commit your patch and we will see via the Jenkins managed operating
systems how the
ooRexx test suite fares on all of them.
Cheers
---rony
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* 23 August 2025 21:49
*To:* 'Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List'
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can
be solved with Dom
Wise's patch (Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the
hang
Also changed in Activity.hpp (missed this earlier)
-+ void exitCurrentThread(bool dispatch = true);
I’ll put together a proper diff
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* 23 August 2025 20:24
*To:* 'Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List'
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* RE: [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can
be solved with Dom
Wise's patch (Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the
hang
Hi Rony,
Nice work!
As regards to my possible fix I was thinking that it might be a good
idea to modify it
slightly with a few additional small changes.
What I’m thinking is that ActivityManager::releaseAccess should have a
flag added which
determines whether or not to call dispatchNext(). This is because in
InterpreterInstance::terminate, calling exitCurrentThread() will
ultimately call this
this and so will the additional “fallback”
ActivityManager::releaseAccess call made
later on. It looks like ActivityManager::dispatchNext removes the head
of the activity
queue and tries to set it running. If this is called twice I’m not sure
whether this
would cause problems.
What might be a good idea is for Activity::exitCurrentThread to have an
optional bool
“dispatch” parameter, set to false in this one instance, along with
Activity::releaseAccess which it calls, and have that pass through the
parameter to
ActivityManager::releaseAccess, modified to only only call
dispatchNext() when the flag
is true. This exitCurrentThread would then release the kernel lock but
not immediately
try to dispatch another thread. The newly added call to
ActivityManager::releaseAccess
(the “fix”) would have the usual call to release (if still held) the
kernel lock AND call
dispatchNext, ensuring it always gets called exactly once.
Below is a summary of the changes. Lines with -+ are changed lines. If
this seems like a
good idea let me know and I’ll get a fresh SVN tree to make the changes
in so that I can
provide a proper diff file. Likewise if there is any critique or
suggestion for
modification I’m all ears!
In Activity.hpp
-+ void releaseAccess(bool dispatch = true);
In Activity.cpp
void Activity::exitCurrentThread(bool dispatch)
{
….
-+ releaseAccess(dispatch);
}
void Activity::releaseAccess(bool dispatch)
{
…
-+ ActivityManager::releaseAccess(dispatch);
}
}
In ActivityManager.hpp
-+ static void releaseAccess(bool dispatch = true);
In ActivityManager.cpp
void ActivityManager::releaseAccess(bool dispatch)
{
…
++ if (dispatch)
++ {
dispatchNext();
++ }
}
In InterpreterInstance.cpp
bool InterpreterInstance::terminate()
{
…
-+ current->exitCurrentThread(false);
…
-+ current->exitCurrentThread(false);
…
++ ActivityManager::releaseAccess(); // the ‘fix’
Kind Regards,
Dom
*From:*Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:* 23 August 2025 17:13
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can be
solved with Dom
Wise's patch (Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the
hang
On 22.08.2025 21:58, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 22.08.2025 13:31, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
Having tested the interpreter without Dom's patch with the
samples fxml_25,
fxml_26, fxml_27, and fxml_99 ("BSF4ooRexx850\samples\JavaFX")
the following
could be observed using different versions of Java (Java 8 and
in the end Java 24):
1. the hang of fxml_99 occurs on all Java versions
2. fxml_25, fxml_26, and fxml_27 seem to work on Java 8
1. fxml_26 and fxml_27 crash on Java 24
This leads me to believe that there might be two different
problems here. Fixing
the hang somehow causes the crashes of fxml_26 and fxml_27 (and
then sometimes of
fxml_25) on both, Java 8 and Java 24, so they seem to be
uncovered earlier.
... cut ...
One important note: here "crashes" should be rephrased to "Java
NullPointer
exceptions", these are *not* crashes of the process! Will runtime
debug BSF.CLS, JNI
and the Java side of the bridge once more, but this may take some
time as glimpses of
private life take precedence this weekend ... ;)
After going through the BSF.CLS, BSF4ooRexx.cc/JNI, Java bridge
programs (creating MBs of
debug data) I found out that the version of BSF4ooRexx850 I have been
working got
tampered by myself! :-( After inspecting my changes (basically debug
statements) I found
the culprit (it was an error in the Java reflection part of Java
constructors).
Tested fxml_20, fxml_25, fxml_26, fxml_27, fxml_99 on Java 8, Java 17
and Java 24. They
work thankfully! :)
---
The hang bug (fxml_99) can be fixed with Dom Wise's patch.
So far no feedback to the contrary has been given and the test to apply
it a hundred
times when terminating an interpreter instance without any side effects
(which would be
surprising seeing the code that gets executed), such that I would like
to apply his patch
(unlocking the kernel by invoking "ActivityManager::releaseAccess()"
right before
invoking "Intepreter::terminateInterpreterInstance(this)) to trunk:
Index: interpreter/runtime/InterpreterInstance.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/runtime/InterpreterInstance.cpp (revision 13006)
+++ interpreter/runtime/InterpreterInstance.cpp (working copy)
@@ -559,6 +559,7 @@
commandHandlers = OREF_NULL;
requiresFiles = OREF_NULL;
+ActivityManager::releaseAccess();
// tell the main interpreter controller we're gone.
Interpreter::terminateInterpreterInstance(this);
Any objections?
With fixing the hang bug there are no open show-stopper bugs in ooRexx
anymore!
---rony
