Re: [drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
Sure, this can wait - say, until classlib tests 100% pass on DRLVM, - just to let current pace of major changes slow down. Other than that, I see no compelling reasons to maintain duplicate impl in DRLVM. And you bet the reference impl in classlib is mature enough to not affect VM stability ;) -- Alexey 2006/10/3, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I tend to agree. I think that it's a good idea to consider for the future, but right now, if the fixes help stabilize, great. I think that stabilization is key right now. geir Serguei Zapreyev wrote: > On 10/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 2006/10/3, Serguei Zapreyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Dear committers, >> > >> > >> > >> > I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the >> > suggested patches. >> > >> > So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of >> delay >> > >> > could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is >> > necessary? >> > >> > All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow >> the >> > execution stability of a big application. >> >> Serguei, >> >> the HARMONY-1573 is mostly about j.l.Process impl. I believe we shoud >> consider reusing >> org\apache\harmony\luni\internal\process\SystemProcess.java available >> in luni rather than fixing alternative impl in DRLVM. >> What do you think? > > > Alexey, > > I guess few items should be took into consideration before doing some > conclusions here. > > First, DRLVM's implementation of Runtime has been checked during a lot of > testing milestones. > Second, its code is well known for DRLVM developers, so it's easy to > maintain it in this hot time. > Third, we have no good test set (like TCK) to compare the discussed impls. > Forth, we have no methods to estimate performance of impls. > ... > > So, I think your suggestion isn't too actual just now and may be considered > some later. > There is no need to upset the current stability just now. > I think the attached patches should be applayed in the nearest time to > improve the > used code. All the more, this patch combines some issues apart from the > Process. > > Thanks, > Serguei > > -- >> Regards, >> Alexey >> >> > >> > Great thanks in advance, >> > >> > Serguei >> > >> > >> >> - >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
I tend to agree. I think that it's a good idea to consider for the future, but right now, if the fixes help stabilize, great. I think that stabilization is key right now. geir Serguei Zapreyev wrote: On 10/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2006/10/3, Serguei Zapreyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear committers, > > > > I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the > suggested patches. > > So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of delay > > could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is > necessary? > > All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow the > execution stability of a big application. Serguei, the HARMONY-1573 is mostly about j.l.Process impl. I believe we shoud consider reusing org\apache\harmony\luni\internal\process\SystemProcess.java available in luni rather than fixing alternative impl in DRLVM. What do you think? Alexey, I guess few items should be took into consideration before doing some conclusions here. First, DRLVM's implementation of Runtime has been checked during a lot of testing milestones. Second, its code is well known for DRLVM developers, so it's easy to maintain it in this hot time. Third, we have no good test set (like TCK) to compare the discussed impls. Forth, we have no methods to estimate performance of impls. ... So, I think your suggestion isn't too actual just now and may be considered some later. There is no need to upset the current stability just now. I think the attached patches should be applayed in the nearest time to improve the used code. All the more, this patch combines some issues apart from the Process. Thanks, Serguei -- Regards, Alexey > > Great thanks in advance, > > Serguei > > - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
On 10/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2006/10/3, Serguei Zapreyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dear committers, > > > > I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the > suggested patches. > > So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of delay > > could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is > necessary? > > All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow the > execution stability of a big application. Serguei, the HARMONY-1573 is mostly about j.l.Process impl. I believe we shoud consider reusing org\apache\harmony\luni\internal\process\SystemProcess.java available in luni rather than fixing alternative impl in DRLVM. What do you think? Alexey, I guess few items should be took into consideration before doing some conclusions here. First, DRLVM's implementation of Runtime has been checked during a lot of testing milestones. Second, its code is well known for DRLVM developers, so it's easy to maintain it in this hot time. Third, we have no good test set (like TCK) to compare the discussed impls. Forth, we have no methods to estimate performance of impls. ... So, I think your suggestion isn't too actual just now and may be considered some later. There is no need to upset the current stability just now. I think the attached patches should be applayed in the nearest time to improve the used code. All the more, this patch combines some issues apart from the Process. Thanks, Serguei -- Regards, Alexey > > Great thanks in advance, > > Serguei > > - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Thanks, Serguei
Re: [drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
On 10/3/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Serguei Zapreyev wrote: > Dear committers, > > > > I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the > suggested patches. I was looking at 1573 last night, but was too tired to follow the instructions :) (Take the third attachment, combine with the first, to produce the second test that can be used on any Thursday in an odd-numbered month. Carry the 7, cross out each second vowel, and ...) Sorry. I'll try to avoid such cases in the future. Yes, I'll look at all three today. the last three were hidden - you didn't assign to the DRLVM component, so I missed them yesterday. > > So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of > delay > > could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is > necessary? > > All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow the > execution stability of a big > > application. Does that mean the patches fix them, or make big apps less stable? Yes, of course, I meant the patches fix them. Thanks, Serguei geir > > > > Great thanks in advance, > > Serguei > - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Thanks, Serguei
Re: [drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
2006/10/3, Serguei Zapreyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Dear committers, I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the suggested patches. So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of delay could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is necessary? All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow the execution stability of a big application. Serguei, the HARMONY-1573 is mostly about j.l.Process impl. I believe we shoud consider reusing org\apache\harmony\luni\internal\process\SystemProcess.java available in luni rather than fixing alternative impl in DRLVM. What do you think? -- Regards, Alexey Great thanks in advance, Serguei - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
Serguei Zapreyev wrote: Dear committers, I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the suggested patches. I was looking at 1573 last night, but was too tired to follow the instructions :) (Take the third attachment, combine with the first, to produce the second test that can be used on any Thursday in an odd-numbered month. Carry the 7, cross out each second vowel, and ...) Yes, I'll look at all three today. the last three were hidden - you didn't assign to the DRLVM component, so I missed them yesterday. So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of delay could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is necessary? All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow the execution stability of a big application. Does that mean the patches fix them, or make big apps less stable? geir Great thanks in advance, Serguei - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[drlvm][kernel & exception handling] several issues
Dear committers, I filed recently the HARMONY-1573, -1650, -1651, -1654 issues with the suggested patches. So, to avoid redoubling efforts or superposition of commits because of delay could somebody take them under a control to estimate and apply if it is necessary? All the more, the 1650 and 1573 issues seem to be able to upset somehow the execution stability of a big application. Great thanks in advance, Serguei
