Hi guys, Do I get it correctly that HARMONY-2320 contains all suggested changes? I'm asking this because it differs from what was posted to another thread "[drlvm][classlib unit tests] iterative runs".
Thanks Evgueni On 11/25/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 24 November 2006 18:44 Salikh Zakirov wrote: > However, these patches somewhat regress in functionality: > I still haven't figured out how to piggy-back on exception throw > to call JVMTI callback and to restore stack guard page. > (the commented out block at the end of nt_exception_filter.cpp was doing it > before fix). > > Any ideas appreciated. I decided this deserves a separate topic. I think signals on unix deserve redesign along with NT exceptions since platform dependent part is actually quite small, and benefit is quite bit if we do this. I've reviewed the patch in HARMONY-2320, the changes are going in the right direction except for 2 things. 1. The function vm_identify_eip seems to be called twice now, first in vectored_exception_handler_internal, second time in c_exception_handler. The function is quite a heavy lookup and it would be better to have it called only once. Probably it will require passing one more argument to c_exception_handler. Maybe it is better to create a separate place for all this stuff in TLS, I mean exception class pointer, registers and in_java flag. This would save you from ESP manipulation and make the code more portable (any ideas how do these ESP manipulations on IPF? ;) ). 2. JVMTI functionality is going to be broken with this patch. The exception_catch handling callback should be changed to accept registers in TLS instead of an assembly stub (makes it more portable too). I think JVMTI breakpoints handler could be integrated with the new functionality and called from inside of c_exception_handler. I am very glad you've started to change this stuff (especially that you comment your code at every significant step). I would really like to help you because I've gone through doing a partial fix only for JVMTI, but now that it seems like all the rest has to be changed too I can share my experience. Isn't it better to use conventional DIE instead of assert(!"...")? -- Gregory
