BTW, could you verify the right patch for tests was used? It should be
tests.final.2.patch.. Sorry for the mess with patches
Evgueni
On 10/9/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put debug printing into test_ti_instrum.c and attached it to JIRA.
Could you run it on your
sure - I'll redo the whole thing from clean...
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
BTW, could you verify the right patch for tests was used? It should be
tests.final.2.patch.. Sorry for the mess with patches
Evgueni
On 10/9/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, why are there so many warnings? I'm not comfortable with having
to suppress them - I'd rather fix them...
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
sure - I'll redo the whole thing from clean...
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
BTW, could you verify the
yes I see them too. I see them even w/o my patch :-( sure, it need to
be fixed...
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, why are there so many warnings? I'm not comfortable with having
to suppress them - I'd rather fix them...
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Geir Magnusson
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at test_ti_instrum.c:80
geir
I have just tried to test HARMONY-1582 patch on Linux/ia32 SUSE 9 and Ubuntu 6.
The smoke and unit tests both pass okay with and
Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at test_ti_instrum.c:80
geir
I have just tried to test HARMONY-1582 patch on Linux/ia32 SUSE 9 and Ubuntu 6.
The smoke and unit tests both
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
test_ti_instrum.c:80
geir
I have just tried to test HARMONY-1582 patch on Linux/ia32 SUSE 9
and Ubuntu
Geir,
Did you pass tests on SUSE9?
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
[echo] ## Executing C unit test: test_ti_instrum
[exec] Result: 1
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_all_threads start
[echo] ERROR: Assertion '(thread_count)==(i +
initial_thread_count)' failed at /home/geir/dev/apache/harmony/
enhanced/trunk/working_vm/vm/tes
On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Geir,
Did you pass tests on SUSE9?
No, I don't have a SUSE9 machine.
geir
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I keep getting a failure
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Salikh Zakirov wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
test_ti_instrum.c:80
geir
I have just tried to test HARMONY-1582 patch on
Could you insert sleep_a_click(); just before line 59 right after
hysem_create(start, 0, 1):
Does it help?
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[echo] ## Executing C unit test: test_ti_instrum
[exec] Result: 1
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_all_threads
Geir, Salikh,
cunit tests are very unstable.. that's why we have different
results on different platforms. It all tests problems. I already fixed
several places but it seems there is much more left. I believe we need
to revise them all. The main problem is that sleep(somthing) is used
to
that works. explain why
Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Could you insert sleep_a_click(); just before line 59 right after
hysem_create(start, 0, 1):
Does it help?
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[echo] ## Executing C unit test: test_ti_instrum
[exec] Result: 1
at least cunit tests instabilities should not prevent the patch
submission. It can take significant time to make them pass on
different configurations.
Evgueni
On 10/9/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir, Salikh,
cunit tests are very unstable.. that's why we have
Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Geir, Salikh,
cunit tests are very unstable.. that's why we have different
results on different platforms. It all tests problems. I already fixed
several places but it seems there is much more left. I believe we need
to revise them all. The main problem is that
Hi,
Oh! Ooh! I did that. I passed cunit, somke, kernel tests on
Windows and smoke, kernel tests on Linux. Unfortunately I failed to
link cunit tests on Linux so far. So I disabled cunit on Linux until
the problem is solved. I believe it is acceptable as short term
solution. I found several
I mahaged to resolve the problem on Linux will update
build.final.patch with build.final.2.patch in a while
On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Oh! Ooh! I did that. I passed cunit, somke, kernel tests on
Windows and smoke, kernel tests on Linux. Unfortunately I
While running cunit on Linux it turned out one test case fails some
time. The fix is in tests.final.2.patch.
So the last versions to be committed:
invocation_api.final.patch
build.final.2.patch
tests.final.2.patch
Evgueni
On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mahaged to
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
test_ti_instrum.c:80
geir
On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
While running cunit on Linux it turned out one test case fails some
time. The fix is in
I put debug printing into test_ti_instrum.c and attached it to JIRA.
Could you run it on your machine and send me console output.
Evgueni
On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the
Geir,
That's terrible. We have power outageservers are down. I can't
send the patches now will do it tomorrow
Evgueni
On 10/5/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
woo hoo! here we go...
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
Hi Evgueni,
On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nooo! LOL
I'm here waiting - This will unblock a whole bunch of things :)
Thanks for the effort
Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Geir,
That's terrible. We have power outageservers are down. I can't
send the patches now will do it tomorrow
Evgueni
On 10/5/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL
Hi,
I'm working on restoring cunit tests. I already made a good progress
in that direction. So I expect to have it done soon
Evgueni
On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume you intend that only the latest patch
can we get a green light from Andrey and any others in the conversation?
geir
Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on restoring cunit tests. I already made a good progress
in that direction. So I expect to have it done soon
Evgueni
On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Evgueni,
On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should resolve remain
concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
Thanks for updating the patch! I agree it it can be committed, at
least signatures look good. 5
woo hoo! here we go...
Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
Hi Evgueni,
On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should resolve remain
concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
Thanks for updating the patch! I agree it it
Hi All,
I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should resolve remain
concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
Thanks
Evgueni
On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey,
I see your points. I think both approaches have advantages and
disadvantages. I think it
I assume you intend that only the latest patch is applied? (And I
assume that it would apply cleanly to SVN HEAD)
geir
Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Hi All,
I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should resolve remain
concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
Thanks
Evgueni
On
On 10/4/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume you intend that only the latest patch is applied?
Yes. invocation_api.5.patch only.
(And I assume that it would apply cleanly to SVN HEAD)
I believe so.
Evgueni
geir
Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
Hi All,
I have attached updated
Evgueni,
1) Which of the patches is a final?
2) It looks like you do not find a way to remove hythread_library_t
from parameters
and JavaVM from thread manager code. Well, leave it as is, I will try
to fix this later.
2)
Is the following global variable is necessary?
extern
On 10/3/06, Artem Aliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evgueni,
Artem,
1) Which of the patches is a final?
invocation_api.4.patch is final. so far :-)
2) It looks like you do not find a way to remove hythread_library_t
from parameters
and JavaVM from thread manager code. Well, leave it as
On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey,
Just to be clear I agree with you it is more convenient if
jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It reflects that
current thread has been attached already. Do you think it makes sense
to get rid of JNIEnv and use
On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey,
Just to be clear I agree with you it is more convenient if
jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It reflects that
current thread has been attached already. Do you
On 10/3/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrey,
Just to be clear I agree with you it is more convenient if
jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It
Andrey,
Just to be clear I agree with you it is more convenient if
jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It reflects that
current thread has been attached already. Do you think it makes sense
to get rid of JNIEnv and use jthread_get_JNI_env in that case?
Regarding jthread_attach. I
On 9/29/06, Andrey Chernyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Artem,
Thank you for your feedback find my inlined.
On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evgueni,
I got most of your changes, but still disagree with all
IMHO Weldon is making a perfectly reasonable request. If he is willing
to look through the patch in detail then waiting a day or two on
progressing other items is well worth it.
Just my 2c.
Tim
Weldon Washburn wrote:
On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose two days
Weldon that's cool if you review the patch. Regarding enable/disable
switching. I agree here such bugs are quite hard to fix. Actually I
think it is a good indicator that you found 25 (don't remember
exactly) enable/disable switching. It was really suspicious if you
hadn't find any disabled
Evgueni,
I got most of your changes, but still disagree with all
hythread/jthread interface changes. Could leave interface unchanged.
See following possible solutions, that could solve the same problems
without interface changes.
1) daemon attribute is a java specific. (Andrey mentioned this
Artem,
Thank you for your feedback find my inlined.
On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evgueni,
I got most of your changes, but still disagree with all
hythread/jthread interface changes. Could leave interface unchanged.
See following possible solutions, that could solve
On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Artem,
Thank you for your feedback find my inlined.
On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evgueni,
I got most of your changes, but still disagree with all
hythread/jthread interface changes. Could leave interface
So where are we here?
On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
On 9/28/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/06, Andrey Chernyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(3)
One more lock is added - hythread_lib_lock. How
I suppose two days silence means that there is no objects (maybe
interest) against proposed patch. I would suggest to commit it ASAP.
It really works! There are some cases when current VM crashes but the
patch fixes it. I can work on bringing cunit tests to live as soon as
the patch is
+1 for commit.
I didn't see any major flaw in the patch; at the same time this
functionality is vital for further progress in many areas. And due to
large scale of the patch it will become stale quite soon.
We certainly should avoid this style in future: need to discuss design
earlier and split
On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose two days silence means that there is no objects (maybe
interest) against proposed patch. I would suggest to commit it ASAP.
It really works! There are some cases when current VM crashes but the
patch fixes it. I can work on bringing
46 matches
Mail list logo
