Just FYI: I was able to build Classlib + DRLVM on SLES 9 64-bit. The only
difficulty was to build libjpeg, libpng and liblcms manually, otherwise
everything went fine.
$ uname -a
Linux xx 2.6.5-7.191-smp #1 SMP Tue Jun 28 14:58:56 UTC 2005 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ ./java -version
Natalya,
Thanks for the proposal.
I think you should start with opening a new JIRA issue, copy the description
of the optimization there and submit some micro-benchmarks showing the
headroom for optimization. Later we'll use this JIRA for discussng code
patches.
One question:
-
On 11/17/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
Just FYI: I was able to build Classlib + DRLVM on SLES 9 64-bit. The
only
difficulty was to build libjpeg, libpng and liblcms manually, otherwise
everything went fine.
why manually?
My system does not have
On 11/17/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't there a package manager that will let you fetch liblcms?
I'm not root there so it was faster to me to build library from src.
Thanks,
Pavel
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
On 11/17/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto
On 11/17/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't there a package manager that will let you fetch liblcms?
I'm not root there so it was faster to me to build library from src.
And, the file depends/libs/build/README.txt
this is too expensive.
2006/11/16, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort,
with
everyone pitching in.
DRLVM is now a full peer to J9
Good proposal, Alex! Do you know if other VM use register-based fast calling
convention and what gain we can get from it? Can we see that
using micro-benchmarks?
Thanks,
Pavel
On 11/16/06, Slava Shakin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex,
It's great you're going to do that. I like the proposal.
: [drlvm][unit] 100% of class library tests pass
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
We have to evolving systems - classlib and DRLVM. To check commits to
classlib we need a stable DRLVM which can pass 100% of HUT. Otherwise
it's
impossible to use DRLVM for pre-commit testing - you never know
whether
your
test
+1
I'm even impressed how good is Harmony performance shown in debug mode! :)
Also, by default DRLVM is tuned for client workloads - fast startup and
reasonable performance.
If you run heavy benchmarks it worth to use -Xem:server or
-Xem:server_static mode to determine the potential of DRLVM.
I like this stone hanging over the harmony! :)
What about adding charts for the DRLVM - lines of code, performance trends
etc?
Thanks,
Pavel
On 11/17/06, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fedotov, Alexei A wrote:
Great! I like the pictures.
Thanks! I'd love to integrate
On 11/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be sure to not miss anyone :) This was a great community effort, with
everyone pitching in.
DRLVM is now a full peer to J9 in Harmony testing. :) We still need
to use J9 (and another VM that happens to work with our classlibrary),
as
of customizing vm to a specific need would be
great.
Thank you,
Nadya Morozova
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Ozhdikhin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:23 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Re: [doc][drlvm] The document Getting started
for starting the
page).
I believe, it is time to remove the Getting Started.
So,
+1
to
Pavel
Ozhdikhin here.
BTW, I asked my dad to look at the website. Ideas for
improvement
from
him:
1) site-local search is useful for a beginner. Hm, Tomcat
has
not
always be transparent. I know it's tutorial-level info, but why not have
it? Giving a show-case of customizing vm to a specific need would be
great.
Thank you,
Nadya Morozova
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Ozhdikhin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:23 AM
in _default_ mode which debug for VM,
release for JIT and whatever it is for classlib. If defaults change then
it will be some other conditions. Average time to run build test is
~60 minutes.
Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
Sure, contributors should check debug or even both debug and release
builds
on release build even if
debug build passes the checks. More sofisticated optimizations applied in
release build may reveal some subtle error in the code. Practically tis is
not a common case though.
Thanks,
Pavel
Thanks,
2006/11/10, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure, contributors should check
for an extra
HOWTO-like page (BTW, thanks to Salikh for starting the page).
I believe, it is time to remove the Getting Started. So, +1 to Pavel
Ozhdikhin here.
BTW, I asked my dad to look at the website. Ideas for improvement from
him:
1) site-local search is useful for a beginner. Hm, Tomcat has
are also obsolete.
3) Do we really need this page today? AFAIU users expect Harmony VM is
able
to run the same apps as RI..
?
On 11/8/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
I've read through the Getting Started with
DRL
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony
+1 for debug testing before submitting a patch.
But, for pre-commit testing we should be careful saying we'll test all the
patches in debug mode. Though it imprves quality of checks, debug build is
significantly slower then release, especially when running with interpreter
or Jitrino.OPT. I ran
test using both debug and release builds :-)
What do we gain by asking the contributor to test less?
Rana
On 11/9/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for debug testing before submitting a patch.
But, for pre-commit testing we should be careful saying we'll test all
the
patches
Hello all,
I've read through the Getting Started with
DRLhttp://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/drlvm/getting_started.html
document on the Harmony web and found it completely outdated, for example:
- the term DRL is used instead of DRLVM
- eclipse.bat and eclipse.sh are obsolete
-1 to separating Jitrino.JET and Jitrino.OPT.
As Mikhail and Alex said, JET and OPT share their code in many areas. So, to
achieve true modularity separating them we'll need either to duplicate
shared code or externalize internal JIT interfaces. The former is
definitely bad and the latter implies
Yuri,
It looks you can't set profilerType other than TNV_FIRST_N here:
std::string vpalgo= profilerType==VALUE_PROFILER_STR ? TNV_FIRST_N :
getParam(config, profilerName+.vpalgo);
Thanks,
Pavel
On 11/2/06, Yuri Kashnikoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Generally your patch is a good piece of
It would be nice also to use the code style used in other JIT sources. For
example, it is not good if, after the diff is applied, different parts of
the source file use different bracing styles:
if () {
}
and
if ()
{
}
The first variant should be used in the sources.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 01 Nov
its number here?
Thank you,
Pavel Ozhdikhin
Intel Java and XML division
On 10/31/06, Yuri Kashnikoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/10/30, Mikhail Fursov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Yuri.
Value profile is a profile that is really needed for set of JIT
optimizations.
What do you want to improve
Thanks, Yuri! I'll try your patch and get back to you here in the list.
-Pavel
On 10/31/06, Yuri Kashnikoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm currently condidering different ways of devirtualization improvement
in
the JIT compiler. There are many of them and value profiling is one of
the
most
Thanks! It builds perfectly now!
-Pavel
On 10/27/06, Weldon Washburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
done!
On 10/26/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems this patch should also update helper name in VMInterface.cpp,
otherwise debug Jitrino build breaks. This will not affect
On 10/26/06, Gregory Shimansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 21:05 Rana Dasgupta wrote:
The ideal way would be for acceptance tests like build test to always
pass and to catch and roll back the patch that breaks this invariant,
rather than to disable the tests. But I
+1 to exclude failing tests for now and require that all remaining tests
must pass. Assuming some tests fail anyway cause people don't treat the
failures seriously. As soon as the bug causing the failure is fixed the
tests need to be unexcluded.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/26/06, Rana Dasgupta [EMAIL
Egor,
Object-VTable will still exist so no changes in devirtualizer are needed.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 26 Oct 2006 15:46:13 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the 0x20E day of Apache Harmony Mikhail Fursov wrote:
Egor,
I would rather disagree in most of the details. :(
Thanks for
Yes! We did it!
Celebration is definitely needed. :)
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am happy to report that the Apache Board was willing to consider our
proposal and voted to accept it at today's board meeting.
As stated in the Incubation vote, this
Sorry for my ignorance but is the goal of patch available flag is to let
committers know that the patch is ready to be committed or what?
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is with almost as much joy as being able to report TLP that I report
that patch
On 27 Oct 2006 12:49:26 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patch Available is great!
Mow let's agree on what this status is :)
I think, *not* all issues with patches desrve the Patch Available
status. There could be some patches that do not solve it yet, not
agreed, or are drafts. Do
Congratulations!
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/25/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As progress towards our goal of having all committers on the PPMC, the
Harmony PPMC is proud to announce it's newest members :
Nathan Beyer
Paulex Yang
Weldon Washburn
Please join us in
+1 from me !
thanks,
Pavel
On 10/21/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're trying something a little different. I think Roy Fielding one
said something along the lines of when a community gets organized
enough to vote itself out of the Incubator, it's appropriate.
So to
Many words have been said in support of this proposal and I second it too.
The Optimizer framework will do less redundant work - currently clean-up
passes are invoked even if the CFG has not been modified by an optimization.
So, refactoring will optimize the optimizer. :)
1) Does everyone
1. Windows XP x86, Windows Server 2003 x86 (32bit)
2. Linux SLES 9 32bit
3. Linux SUSE 9 64bit
3. Linux SLES 9 IPF
Thank you,
Pavel
On 10/17/06, Xiao-Feng Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My vote:
FC4/5, Suse11, Windows XP/2003
X86 (both 32bit and 64bit), and IPF
I guess it's a bit unclear to
Bazaar is a funny concept. :) I think it'll work assuming we have a
bazaar police - something constantly checking integrity of our code on
some target platforms. These may be the community members reporting
failures or a tool constantly testing some target platforms. But this
tool is another
+1 for moving to the top level.
I think for all who contributes to Harmony first of all this is a
greate recognition of the maturity of the project and this is more
than just a new site name!
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/17/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Harmony PPMC has been
To update the statistics, my tools:
- MS Windows Server 2003 / IA32:
MSVS .NET 2003
ant-1.6.5
JRockit JDK 1.5.0_03
- Linux / IA32:
gcc 3.3.3
GNU make 3.80
ant-1.6.5
JRockit JDK 1.5.0
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/10/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing the same problem.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/10/06, Alexey Varlamov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got the following compilation error (SLES 9 gcc 3.3.3):
build-native:
[exec] cc -O1 -march=pentium3 -DLINUX -D_REENTRANT
-commit criteria seems to me the only way to prevent breakage.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/9/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 October 2006 at 16:12, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rana Dasgupta wrote:
We need to check both release
Oh, again! Classlib is broken on Linux right now! :(
And it was not me who did this to illustrate the problem. :)
On 10/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think the diversity is generally good. Let's test Harmony on as
many platfroms as possible and find as many problems
On 10/10/06, Mark Hindess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 October 2006 at 18:52, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, again! Classlib is broken on Linux right now! :(
And it was not me who did this to illustrate the problem. :)
You are obviously using the wrong version of gcc
I'm seeing the same problem.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/10/06, Alexey Varlamov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got the following compilation error (SLES 9 gcc 3.3.3):
build-native:
[exec] cc -O1 -march=pentium3 -DLINUX -D_REENTRANT
-DIPv6_FUNCTION_SUPPORT -DHYX86 -I/e
\enhanced\classlib\trunk\depends\libs\build\README.txt.
Or check the recent posts about this. E.g. the following recent thread:
[classlib][build]Lacks liblcms.a libpng.a and etc on Linux and
recommend to add them to fetch-depends target
On 10/10/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing
:
On 10 October 2006 at 19:36, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a symlink
trunk/working_classlib/depends/libs/build/lcms/liblcms.ia32 -
/usr/lib/liblcms.a and a good symlink to lcms.h in the same directory.
png and jpeg dirs also contain valid symlinks. Do you think I still
need
On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rana Dasgupta wrote:
We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries and timing
characteristics are too different. At this immediate stage of the
project, I
would suggest leaving out EM64T as part of mandatory testing( unless it
with
definite configuration and ask another committer to check it on other
system.
Thanks,
Mikhail
Thanks,
Pavel
2006/10/9, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 10/9/06, Tim Ellison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rana Dasgupta wrote:
We need to check both release and debug builds...the binaries
primary target configs here.
Thank you
Pavel Ozhdikhin
-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
criteria I think we can
avoid many problems using primary target configs.
Thanks,
Pavel
On 10/6/06, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavel,
Your idea has sence. But... Are you sure that all the committers has
all the mentioned configurations?
SY, Alexey
2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin
.
On 10/7/06, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I only have Windows/MSVC2003/IA32, if you're looking for anecdotal evidence.
On 10/6/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexey,
No, I'm not sure the committers have all the configurations. I think
most of all have Windows and Linux
On 10/7/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific
code in VM?
The commit criteria my be either as simple as a list of configs or
have also some exclusions. For example, there is no much sense to test
on Linux a patch
On 10/7/06, Alexey Petrenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2006/10/6, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What would you do if you need to commit a patch to some Linux-specific
code in VM?
And I do not have Linux?
I will not commit this patch of course. And will ask another committer
to do
and regression testing purposes.
Thanks,
Pavel Ozhdikhin
On 9/21/06, Mikhail Fursov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
This is the proposal to start the discussion and implementation of
Jitrino.OPT compiler internal testing framework.
There are a lot of optimizations in Jitrino with a variety
period.
Pavel Ozhdikhin
On 9/21/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
go for it. Thanks
On Sep 21, 2006, at 2:05 AM, Mikhail Fursov wrote:
Checked -Xem:opt/jet/.. - works fine. The old format had a space
between
-Xem and config name.
The new format is reasonable because it's more
On 18 Sep 2006 12:00:57 +0700, Egor Pasko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the 0x1E5 day of Apache Harmony Pavel Ozhdikhin wrote:
Thanks for explaining. This is another variant of the bytecode-based
regression tests.
This variant is also adoptable to Java-based and IR-based regression tests
some magic and then comes back and says
everything is OK.
Sorry to sound difficult.
Thanks,
Rana
On 9/14/06, Pavel Ozhdikhin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Rana,
When I think of an optimization which gives 1% improvement on some
simple
workload or 3% improvement on EM64T platforms
*Re-sending to the new thread:*
Hello Rana,
When I think of an optimization which gives 1% improvement on some simple
workload or 3% improvement on EM64T platforms only I doubt this can be
easily detected with a general-purpose test suite. IMO the performance
regression testing should have a
Hello Rana,
When I think of an optimization which gives 1% improvement on some simple
workload or 3% improvement on EM64T platforms only I doubt this can be
easily detected with a general-purpose test suite. IMO the performance
regression testing should have a specialized framework and a stable
Egor,
How Nullstone tests differ from what Rana proposed and Mikhail L. prototyped
- could you please elaborate?
Thanks,
Pavel
Any other ideas or experience how to test compiler optimizations
predictably?
although having performance measurements, NULLSTONE-like tests are
quite predictable
61 matches
Mail list logo
