Alexey, Sorry. At the time I wrote that observation I was confused with the alternative verifier convention to return _FALSE to indicate a successful check in checkAccess* functions.
The problem happens in a different place and is related to mixing of classes from different class loaders. The fact is that compared class handles reference different class loaders, and this might be problem of the verifier internal cache. I've updated HARMONY-4738 [1] with the latest information, but resolution is not clear yet. Thanks. [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4738 On 9/6/07, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Alexei. > > So I would say that we should revert this patch and then think on how > to resolve the issue in better way? > > Thoughts? > > SY, Alexey > > 2007/9/5, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Gregory, > > Thanks for your help! > > > > My observation is that the problem showed itself after the following fix > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=563763 > > > > Tracking things in a debugger I can see that the following new line of > > code returns unexpected result. I will dig further into the behavior > > of this function. > > - return _TRUE; > > + return !class_is_same_package(k_class, referred) && > > vf_is_extending(k_class, referred); > > > > With best regards, Alexei > > > > On 9/5/07, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 5 September 2007 at 16:05, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Alexey Petrenko wrote: > > > > > 2007/9/4, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >> Gregory Shimansky wrote: > > > > >>> It seems to be a bug in verifier, but there weren't any changes in > > > > >>> verifier recently, so I am not sure it is a regression. Probably > > > > >>> this > > > > >>> bug was hidden and didn't show up until recently. > > > > >> BTW, building DRLVM with -Duse_original_verifier=true allows eclipse > > > > >> 3.3 > > > > >> to start. I think that maybe switching back to older verifier again > > > > >> might improve the situation. > > > > > Yes, this helps. -noverify should also help in this case. > > > > > > > > > > I've created HARMONY-4738 to track the issue. > > > > > It would be nice if someone familiar with the verifier could fix the > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > BTW I think I've found out the reason for this bug. Eclipse 3.3 has an > > > > ICU4J implementation bundled with it. It uses ICU 3.6.1 while we have > > > > ICU4J 3.4.4 in bootclasspath. > > > > > > > > In this case ICU classes are loaded from our 3.4.4 JAR file except for > > > > some classes that may not be present in the older version. In this case > > > > they are taken from Eclipse's JAR file which leads to inconsistencies. > > > > > > > > I wonder why older verifier implementation works ok... > > > > > > No idea. I also wonder why J9 is unaffected. > > > > > > FYI: I see similar but not identical problems on Linux. > > > > > > -Mark. > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-4738 > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2007/9/4, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >>>>> Yes, looks like we really have a regression. > > > > >>>>> I've tried Eclipse with M2 and recent classlib with j9 and works > > > > >>>>> in > > > > >>>>> both cases. But silently crashes silently in the very beging. Even > > > > >>>>> without trace in configuration directory. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> So we need to investigate the issue. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Any help is welcome :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> SY, Alexey > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 2007/9/4, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >>>>>> Leo Li wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On 9/4/07, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> Guys, > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I've tried to run In Harmony with Eclipse bundle on the recent > > > > >>>>>>>> harmony/drlvm build but it crashes silently in the very > > > > >>>>>>>> begining. > > > > >>>>>>>> I would say that this is very serious regression for us. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll continue investigation but it would be nice if someone > > > > >>>>>>>> will try > > > > >>>>>>>> to investigate it in the same time. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> SY, Alexey > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yes, it is a serious regression. And do you know when it start > > > > >>>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>> fail? > > > > >>>>>>> I will try it when I go to office tomorrow since I have no > > > > >>>>>>> classlib > > > > >>>>>>> on hand. Not sure whether I can help.:) > > > > >>>>>> FYI: It's working ok for me on the current HEAD of classlib > > > > >>>>>> (r572680) > > > > >>>>>> with the IBM VME. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Regards, > > > > >>>>>> Tim > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Gregory > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Gregory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > With best regards, > > Alexei, > > ESSD, Intel > > > -- With best regards, Alexei, ESSD, Intel
