Hi,
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 08:48 +0100, Michael Koch wrote:
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2005 04:49 schrieb Archie Cobbs:
I got an assertion failure in JC when running a simple Swing app.
The stack trace showed JC invoking a gtkpeer native method with
one JNIEnv *, some gtk code, and then gtkpeer
Artur Biesiadowski writes:
Sascha Brawer wrote:
I was just re-reading the FAQ [1] -- what would speak against
pre-allocating thread-specific OutOfMemoryException objects when
creating a thread? (Probably more a VM-specific thing, but since it's
mentioned in the Classpath
Andrew Haley wrote:
Indeed. The problem is that anything you do when catching an
OutOfMemoryException risks running out of memory! There's not much
any java program can do other than logging the failure and exiting.
To be pedantic, it's OutOfMemoryError, and the same applies largely to
any
Chris Burdess writes:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Indeed. The problem is that anything you do when catching an
OutOfMemoryException risks running out of memory! There's not much
any java program can do other than logging the failure and exiting.
To be pedantic, it's OutOfMemoryError,
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 21:12 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-01-09 at 18:06 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
If we cannot find a solution on at least one of those points because
of legal uncertainity whom do we have to ask then (FSF legal?)
and who is doing the communication?
Hi,
We triggered exactly the same bug with jamvm lately. Mark found out it
was a bug in jamvm handling JNIEnv* wrongly. I don't know if this was
a fix or a hack. But it helped. Perhaps its a bug in JCVM regarding
handling of JNIEnv.
It was kind of a hack. There was a real bug in how
Hi Everyone,
I've been working on JUnit wrapper for Mauve suitable for running Mauve
from within Eclipse's JUnit visual runner; without requiring a posix
environment (no configure or make steps required)[1].
I've found a few 'Tags:' header lines in non-test classes (ones not
derived from
Hi,
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 13:49 +, Robert Lougher wrote:
Making
it static means there's only ever one JNIEnv*, which is fine for JamVM
as it's got no thread-specific stuff in it.
This is the same model as used by libgcj. But kissme for example has
different structures for each thread.
And as requested by Michael Koch, here's a version of the patch without
the ChangeLog entry...
--
Stephane Meslin-Weber Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Engineer Web: http://odonata.tangency.co.uk
And apologies for making such a mess of the first patch.
Please find attached a patch without CRLF and _with_ the necessary
changes to the ChangeLog!
Best regards,
Steph
--
Stephane Meslin-Weber Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Lougher wrote:
Opinions?
How about specification instead? :-)
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jni/html/design.html#10110
11.5.1 Organization of the JNIEnv Interface Pointer
...
Because the JNIEnv interface pointer is thread-local, native code must
not use the JNIEnv interface pointer
Hi Michael,
I don't wanna bother you but when will next jamvm version get
released ? currently its hard to use because we need to apply 4
patches to jamvm to be able to run GNU classpath from CVS.
Yes, I've seen the reports... I'll release it over the weekend, once
I've had chance to
The JNI book (8.1.1) says: The Java virtual machine passes a native
method the same JNIEnv pointer in consecutive invocations from the same
thread, but passes different JNIEnv pointers when invoking that native
method from different threads. and (11.5.1) says: Native code may use
the JNIEnv
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2005 15:59 schrieb Robert Lougher:
The JNI book (8.1.1) says: The Java virtual machine passes a
native method the same JNIEnv pointer in consecutive invocations
from the same thread, but passes different JNIEnv pointers when
invoking that native method from different
Robert Lougher wrote:
It would be an interesting question to ask if JNI code
should expect the JNIEnv* to be different for different threads.
Opinions?
Stop the nonsense! :-)
The idea that there is anything other than a 1:1 pairing between
threads and JNIEnv * pointers is
Michael Koch wrote:
The JNIEnv * passed back in frame #23 is different from the one
passed back in frame #7 (not visible in the trace, but I know it's
different).
We triggered exactly the same bug with jamvm lately. Mark found out it
was a bug in jamvm handling JNIEnv* wrongly. I don't know if
Robert Lougher wrote:
So to be compliant I've got to use a separate JNIEnv for each thread,
but there's no point putting anything in it, because it'll break with
the gtk code :)
No, I don't think the VM has to use different JNIEnv * pointers
for different threads. But it may. The point is that the
Robert Lougher wrote:
So to be compliant I've got to use a separate JNIEnv for each thread,
but there's no point putting anything in it, because it'll break with
the gtk code :)
No, I don't think the VM has to use different JNIEnv * pointers
for different threads. But it may. The point
On Friday 14 January 2005 15:59, Robert Lougher wrote:
I'll make it my internal thread structure, adding the function table
pntr to the beginning -- this is obviously what the spec expects it to
be.
Yup, and it's what Wonka has always done.
I didn't do this before because it makes the
Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:32:41 +0100,
Sascha Brawer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds pretty cool. Actually, who is going to FOSDEM? May
ex-classpath-hackers-gone-lurking come, too?
Good to hear you Sascha! Of course you are welcome! ;-)
--
Arnaud Vandyck
,= ,-_-. =.
((_/)o o(\_))
`-'(.
On Friday 14 January 2005 13:24, Andrew Haley wrote:
Chris Burdess writes:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Indeed. The problem is that anything you do when catching an
OutOfMemoryException risks running out of memory! There's not much
any java program can do other than logging the failure
Hi,
Are many people from the runtimes going? I really enjoyed it last
year, and I'd like to go again this year.
Rob.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:19:47 +0100, Arnaud Vandyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:32:41 +0100,
Sascha Brawer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds pretty cool.
On Thursday 13 January 2005 15:08, Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
Sascha Brawer wrote:
I was just re-reading the FAQ [1] -- what would speak against
pre-allocating thread-specific OutOfMemoryException objects when
creating a thread? (Probably more a VM-specific thing, but since it's
mentioned
Hi!
just to say that this year I won't attend FOSDEM; I really would like to,
but I'm in California till the end of march.
-Patrik
--On Freitag, 14. Januar 2005 17:53 + Robert Lougher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Are many people from the runtimes going? I really enjoyed it last
year, and
24 matches
Mail list logo
