On the 0x23C day of Apache Harmony Elena Semukhina wrote: > On 12/11/06, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Elena, > > > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > RI*: 3689 > > > > > > > > It's mean that test is failed on RI, isn't it? > > > > So 7000 isn't correct for RI. Let's change it to 3000. And test start's > > pass > > on our VM. > > > It will fail in the interpreter mode :(. > > Since this functionality depends on implementation, the test may pass here > and fail there. > I'd like to hear from DRLVM gurus that e.g. the test is incorrect because > the stack size limit in the DRLVM is restricted to some value which cause > StackOverflowError and the correct number in the test should be XXX. I know > that 200 is acceptable :) but should it be larger?
stack size limit in DRLVM depends on: * mode (opt/jet/int) * -Xss (default) setting * the test itself and current set of optimizations like inlining heuristics which are subject to constant change the question is: do we want a test that would fail often due to various (valid) configuration changes in DRLVM? I think, no. Though, it makes sense to create a stress test with intensive stack usage, on which we should not crash. > Elena > > Pavel. > > > On 12/11/06, Elena Semukhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Pavel, > > > > what is incorrect in the test? > > > > It passes on windows on IBM VME and JRockit. As for the magic number 7000, > > I > > think the author of the test considered it quite satisfactory . In the > > comments to the test he wrote that an alternative java craches with > > 200000:). > > > > The JVM Spec reads: > > * If the computation in a thread requires a larger Java virtual machine > > stack than is permitted, the Java virtual machine throws a > > StackOverflowError. > > > > So throwing StackOverflowError is legal and the stack size limit depends > > on > > implementation. The question is whether the test has to pass on the > > current > > DRLVM implementation. If it fails legally, then we should fix the test so > > that it reflects the status quo. > > > > Thanks, > > Elena > > > > On 12/11/06, Pavel Afremov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think that test is invalid. It doesn't pass on windows RI , so ┘ no > > > comments. Also it is not clear why depth should be 7000. I can find this > > > magic value in any spec. > > > > > > Pavel Afremov. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/11/06, Elena Semukhina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > The smoke test stress.Stack fails with StackOverflowError on Windows > > and > > > > linux/INT. It passes only on linux/JIT now. > > > > The test algorithm is simple: a method calls itself recursively for > > 7000 > > > > times. The test fails if StackOverflowError is thrown. > > > > > > > > The following are the numbers of iterations before the test fails: > > > > > > > > Windows: > > > > INT: 353 > > > > JET: 3963 > > > > OPT: 32264 > > > > RI*: 3689 > > > > > > > > Linux: > > > > INT: 587 > > > > JET: 7762 > > > > OPT: 72105 (!!!) > > > > RI*: 61837 > > > > > > > > *RI is Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build > > > > 1.5.0_08-b03 > > > > ). > > > > > > > > Are these numbers expected? Are there any restrictions on stack size > > in > > > > DRLVM? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Thanks, > > > > Elena > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Elena > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Elena -- Egor Pasko
