Gregory Shimansky skrev den 01-06-2006 23:34:
First I decided to use the current MS free software to repeat what is
done
by commercial. Nowdays MS offers VS.NET 2005 express edition (no earlier
verions are available for download as far as I could find) and
Platform SDK
Server 2003 R2 (at
Thorbjørn,
When you figure this out can you please write up the summary so we can
put it on the project webpages?
Thanks
Tim
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
Gregory Shimansky skrev den 07-07-2006 15:01:
Do you mean you have an error that there is no manifest file present?
This has
been
Weldon,
On 7/9/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
As a first step to improving DRLVM's GC/VM interface, it would be
great to cleanup drlvm/trunk/vm/include/open/vm_gc.h and gc.h.
Basically the concept is to start by removing unused APIs and fixing
the comments.
This is a good
Mark,
Let me report one more build problem in this thread: On build 420458
of VM + classlib the following test:
import javax.swing.*;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
new JButton();
}
}
prints:
Uncaught exception in AWT-EventQueue:
Tim Ellison skrev den 10-07-2006 10:41:
Thorbjørn,
When you figure this out can you please write up the summary so we can
put it on the project webpages?
Sure, but just copying all the manifests did not work, so right now I
have - temporarily - given up.
Where are all the Visual Studio
2006/7/10, Anton Luht [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mark,
Let me report one more build problem in this thread: On build 420458
of VM + classlib the following test:
import javax.swing.*;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
new JButton();
}
}
prints:
El dom, 09-07-2006 a las 18:34 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr escribió:
Tim Ellison wrote:
The reference implementation doesn't make sense in this example, and it
is highly unlikely that any application will be dependent upon this
behavior, so I propose that we do not apply this patch.
+1
If you made it this far, you're here Welcome.
We don't allow or disallow people to join this list (unless you
really misbehave!) - everyone is welcome.
geir
On Jul 9, 2006, at 10:11 PM, yichao cai wrote:
thx
-
雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量，20M附件
On 10 July 2006 at 17:50, Mikhail Loenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/7/10, Anton Luht [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mark,
Let me report one more build problem in this thread: On build 420458
of VM + classlib the following test:
import javax.swing.*;
public class Test {
public static
Tim Ellison wrote:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/5/25, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
We also agreed to put only internationalized messages and
to have a single catalog by module.
Yep, that's a good task for somebody who is looking for a simple way to
contribute to
Ilya,
I'd also suggest you to look at
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/platform-core/documents/3.1/message_bundles.html.
It describes quite smart approach for using message bundles, we could
go in the similar direction.
--
Alexey Varlamov
2006/7/10, Ilya Okomin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Tim Ellison
Hi,
If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded
by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving
the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by
the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing.
I think it's a nice
Hmm..
Let me go check previous mails. I think I can be of some help here...
Regards,
Sanket
-Original Message-
From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 7/10/2006 4:16 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Strategy for Harmony to work with Visual
Yep, it's an interesting idea.
I like it!
SY, Alexey
2006/7/10, Alexey Varlamov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ilya,
I'd also suggest you to look at
http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/platform-core/documents/3.1/message_bundles.html.
It describes quite smart approach for using message bundles, we could
go in
OK. Security is always good.
But I think that it is better to use C99 functions mentioned by Ivan.
I've checked that snprintf function is implemented in glibc and MSVS 2003.
SY, Alexey
2006/7/10, Xiao-Feng Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My idea is NOT to write wrappers for Microsoft extentions.
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi,
If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded
by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving
the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by
the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be failing.
On 7/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 July 2006 at 19:13, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thorbj=F8rn_Ravn_Andersen?= [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Volosyuk skrev den 08-07-2006 00:35:
Working on different projects, I've found out that Java programmers
and C programmers have different
Weldon,
I just commited http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-816
into JIRA.
It contains the changes for Jitrino.JET:
- magics support for MMTk
- write barriers for Java for MMTk
- a simple test to check the things are alive
I also have few questions on unboxed package and some MMTk
+1
Haven't had a chance to review this contribution exhaustively (there is
a lot of code), but from what I have seen this will be a great boost to
the test suite!
Thanks
Tim
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
All is in order and in SVN for Harmony-609 wrt BCC and ACQ.
Please vote to accept or reject
On 7/10/06, Xiao-Feng Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Weldon,
On 7/9/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
As a first step to improving DRLVM's GC/VM interface, it would be
great to cleanup drlvm/trunk/vm/include/open/vm_gc.h and gc.h.
Basically the concept is to start by removing
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi,
If there are really useful tests that are being unnecessarily excluded
by being in the same *Test class, then you may want to consider moving
the failing tests into SecureRandom3Test and excluding that -- but by
the sound of it all SecureRandom tests will be
On 10 July 2006 at 16:18, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 July 2006 at 19:13, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thorbj=F8rn_Ravn_Andersen?= thunde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Volosyuk skrev den 08-07-2006 00:35:
Working on different
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
On 7/7/06, Oliver Deakin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
I was trying to compile the kernel classes set from DRLVM
independently
from the classlib and found it difficult because kernel classes set
currently have a dependence on the internal
One question, why do we need write barriers for 'putstatic' bytecode?
This fields appear in root set and does not represent heap to heap
references. There is no need to add write barriers to this entities.
This is good that the patch doesn't conflict with HARMONY-581. I can
continue my
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of
class
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One question, why do we need write barriers for 'putstatic' bytecode?
This fields appear in root set and does not represent heap to heap
references. There is no need to add write barriers to this entities.
Good question. The short answer is
Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers (=
annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure is a
tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the sets
Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like to pay your attention on the
fact what it is
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers (=
annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure is a
tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the sets
Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like to pay your attention on
+1
--
George
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
All is in order and in SVN for Harmony-609 wrt BCC and ACQ.
Please vote to accept or reject this codebase into the Apache Harmony
class library :
[ ] + 1 Accept
[ ] -1 Reject (provide reason below)
Lets let this run a minimum of 3 days unless a)
Thanks George Tim, I was out during last week and today was reading
threads from oldest to the newest. :)
I agree, general solution using TestSuites or even TestNG is better
than my temporary one. However, defining a general approach can take a
long period of time. Anyway, let's move our
Can someone just collect the info that is known and summarize? I'd
prefer a document for the website, but if you'd rather work on the wiki
and we can harvest from there later, that works for me as well...
geir
Sanket Sharma wrote:
Hmm..
Let me go check previous mails. I think I can be of
I also think that it is a good approach from the point of view of
performance and memory management.
What is to add - there is not so much efforts to adopt existing one
framework to this approach.
Any thoughts what is the proper way to go?
On 7/10/06, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to
George Harley wrote:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers (=
annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure is a
tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the sets
Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like
On 7/10/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 July 2006 at 16:18, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 July 2006 at 19:13, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thorbj=F8rn_Ravn_Andersen?= thunde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Volosyuk skrev
On 7/10/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One question, why do we need write barriers for 'putstatic' bytecode?
This fields appear in root set and does not represent heap to heap
references. There is no need to add write barriers
Aside from being distracted by my new macbook pro dual core intel
wonderbox, I was playing with seeding a build/test/ci infrastructure,
and want to solicit comments before I check in something.
I call this a seed because I know there's a lot of interest in a
richer framework for
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact statement was referring to TestNG as probably unstable
rather than simply unstable. ;) This statement was
What is required to get the DRLVM use the Harmony launcher ?
geir
-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 July 2006 at 19:11, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 July 2006 at 16:18, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
What's wrong with the notation:
'BUILD_CFG=debug ant' or simply 'ant'
I looked through the list of TODO projects for JIT [1] and decided to write a
microbenchmark detecting how good interface call devirtualization works in JIT
(see below)
Jitrino.OPT showed very-very slow (~2.5 times slower than JRockit (1.5/linux)).
I looked through the compile-time log of
Classlib, of cause :)
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Invocation API is missing in DRLVM. It should be implemented.
Launcher should be updated:
char defaultDllName[] = clearvm;
p.s. Invocation api is really good todo item. I'm looking forward to
see browser plugin using
Sorry I havnt replied sooner Thorbjørn - I have been off list the last
few days
or so, and am still wading through all the mail. I think Marks response
summed up
what I was thinking pretty well but Ill go through and check...
Mark Hindess wrote:
On 5 July 2006 at 13:39,
Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
Invocation API is missing in DRLVM. It should be implemented.
Launcher should be updated:
char defaultDllName[] = clearvm;
That should not be a blocker, as I mentioned before you can override it
on the command-line.
If you want to use a different name today:
(1) In
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Classlib, of cause :)
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Invocation API is missing in DRLVM. It should be implemented.
Yes, it seems like the launcher will need at least JNI_CreateJavaVM
and DestroyJavaVM functions.
I
On 7/10/06, Oliver Deakin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
On 7/7/06, Oliver Deakin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
I was trying to compile the kernel classes set from DRLVM
independently
from the classlib and found it difficult because kernel classes
On 10/07/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact statement was referring to TestNG as probably
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact statement was referring to TestNG as probably unstable
rather than simply unstable.
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/10/06, Ivan Volosyuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One question, why do we need write barriers for 'putstatic' bytecode?
This fields appear in root set and does not represent heap to heap
Not to add another fire to this topic, but with all things being relative,
so far this topic has been comparison of the TestNG and JUnit v3.8. From
what I understand, the latest JUnit v4.1 provides many of the same
annotation features that TestNG does, as well guaranteed compatibility with
JUnit
create_vm() looks quite close/complete to being a complete prototype for
CreateJavaVM,
but I think more work is needed in DestroyVM which prototypes DestroyJavaVM
for functional completeness. It is non waiting on user threads, it does not
send the corresponding JVMTI shutdown events, I also don't
Nathan Beyer wrote:
Not to add another fire to this topic, but with all things being relative,
so far this topic has been comparison of the TestNG and JUnit v3.8. From
what I understand, the latest JUnit v4.1 provides many of the same
annotation features that TestNG does, as well guaranteed
Hi Tim
you've fixed check for parameters in one of the (byte[], int, int) methods
in a way different to how we fixed them before:
offset 0 || len 0 || (long)offset + (long)len input.length
compare to e.g HARMONY-377 or -437:
count 0 || offset 0 || offset buffer.length || count
Also there is destroy_vm(), which I guess even more close to what is
needed to prototype DestroyJavaVM.
Anyway, current DRLVM shutdown is tied closely with termination of the
main thread, leaving little chance for launcher cleanup. This is not a
blocker for now, but the shutdown certainly is the
I'm getting close to having the initial proposal for integrating the
java.util.concurrent code from Doug Lea's web site for Harmony's class
library complete and need a few questions answered.
How should I submit it?
. Check in the code as the 'concurrent' module and go from there?
. Check in the
Hi Alexei
Why do you think that your proposed style:
public Object get(Object oldInstance) {
ObjectNode node;
Object result;
if (oldInstance == null) {
return null;
}
node = nodes.get(oldInstance);
result = getValue(node);
return
Whoa, good summaries!
On 7/11/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
Not to add another fire to this topic, but with all things being
relative,
so far this topic has been comparison of the TestNG and JUnit v3.8. From
what I understand, the latest JUnit v4.1
Nathan Beyer wrote:
I'm getting close to having the initial proposal for integrating the
java.util.concurrent code from Doug Lea's web site for Harmony's class
library complete and need a few questions answered.
How should I submit it?
. Check in the code as the 'concurrent' module and
58 matches
Mail list logo
