Rana, Pavel (Afremov), All, Geir's comment on r443504 (fix for http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-1363 [drlvm] Java 1.5, 64 bit support, JVMTI improvements) reads:
> 1) Stack overflow exception stuff is broken. I had to remove the assert > in signals_ia32.cpp line 336. Rana knows and will look. I also > disabled the StackTest. I have noticed that the patch added a new function exn_raise_by_name_internal which fails on the first invocation checking an assertion about thread state, see http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2070 [drlvm][unit] org.apache.harmony.beans.tests.java.beans.PersistenceDelegateTest crashes DRLVM. I also have noticed that this function is called to create java.lang.StackOverflowError. Could you help me to understand the current status of the problem? With best regards, Alexei Fedotov, Intel Java & XML Engineering >-----Original Message----- >From: Rana Dasgupta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:27 AM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [drlvm] [testing] Excluding commit tests until the problem is >fixed > >I fixed the StackOverflow functionality problem by going back and mapping >all pages ( guard, alternate stack ) meticulously before trying to protect >them. I think we should have done this in the first place. I also cleaned >up the previous initialization workarounds and asserts Geir and I had >discussed on the JIRA. The Stacktest and all other stack related tests now >pass. > >I'll submit the patch against 1786 in the next few hours after running >acceptance tests. > >Rana > > > >> On 10/16/06, Rana Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 10/16/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Tuesday 17 October 2006 00:01 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> > > >> I tried to put some back. StackTest still doesn't work. It's >hard >> > > to >> > > >> believe... so I gave up and just kept going :) >> > > >> > > >I wonder if the test or the implementation are wrong. Maybe someone >> > > who added >> > > >the test initially could know the answer. >> > >> > >> > >> > There is nothing wrong with the stacktest test itself. The >> > > implementation is not quite 100%complete( I think ), but has enough >> > > functionality and the test passes on Windows. On Linux, it fails. I >am not >> > > sure if this is a regression, or if this ever worked. There is a JIRA >issue >> > > 1786. In summary, memory protection setup for the guard page fails on >the >> > > main thread(only). So the guard does not work and the overflow is not >> > > detected. >> > >> > >> > mprotect fails with an ENOMEM which is either a mapping failure or a >> > kernel failure. mprotect() has some known flakiness it seems, as per >> > literature. >> > >> > The basic implementation on Linux is sound. There are secondary >design >> > issues,but we can only get to them later after we have figured out why >the >> > guard setup fails on the main thread. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >>
