> Could you please attach javap result of affected class ?
Method name:"WM_MOUSEACTIVATE" Signature:
569=(int,int)org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.LRESULT
Attribute "Code", length:605, max_stack:3, max_locals:9, code_length:317
0: aload_0
1: iload_1
2: iload_2
3: invokespecial #1157=<Method
org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Decorations.WM_MOUSEACTIVATE
(int,int)org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.LRESULT>
6: astore_3
7: aload_3
8: ifnull 13
11: aload_3
12: areturn
13: iload_2
14: ldc_w #476=<Integer 65535>
17: iand
18: i2s
19: istore 4
21: iload 4
23: tableswitch low=-2, high=0, default=51
-2: 48
-1: 48
0: 48
48: goto 165
51: aload_0
52: getfield #1015=<Field org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.display
org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display>
55: invokevirtual #1175=<Method
org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display._getFocusControl
()org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control>
58: astore 5
[...]
org/eclipse/swt/widgets/Shell/WM_MOUSEACTIVATE(II)Lorg/eclipse/swt/internal/win32/LRESULT;,
pass: 1, instr: 23, reason: compound instruction: method length is
less than required
I believe negative numbers are now converted to big unsigned after
recent type changes. Sorry for regression, I'm looking into this.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Vasily Levchenko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you please attach javap result of affected class ?
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/18/08, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello folks,
> > > Have you got any updates about commitment of
> > > H-5750<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750>.
> > >
> > >
> > > About testing.
> > > We've discussed it with some folks, but I don't know how it complex for
> > > testing system of Harmony.
> > > Actually the functionality we need is used for recalculating stack maps
> > > after instrumentation. There is a subproject of TPTP called Probekit
> > that
> > > injects probes into compiled code. But for re-calculation requires valid
> > JNI
> > > pointer (you can find some details in
> > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629). So minimize test
> > it
> > > possible re-use static instrumentator with introduced in the same
> > bugzilla
> > > java6 support but for static instrumentation.
> > >
> > > Is it ok with you?
> > >
> >
> > I don't know what exactly did you imply by saying "how it complex for
> > testing system of Harmony". From you wrote above my impression that
> > you can not provide "specific tests" right now.
> >
> > And we are going to run 'standard' set of suites to verify the change.
> >
> > FYI: the first test results of committing HARMONY-5750 is failed
> > EHWA_API (integrity testing) on all platforms in all testing modes. It
> > potentially may mean that there are serious issues with the update.
> > Could you look into [1]?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://people.apache.org/~varlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Evarlax/harmony-integrity/linux_x86/ehwa-api/execution_log.html>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alexei Fedotov <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nathan, thanks for a question!
> > > >
> > > > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? [...] are there
> > > > specific tests that could be run to get a general
> > > > > assurance of the passivity?
> > > >
> > > > I was asking Vasily to prepare at least one stand-alone test to be
> > > > included (by me) in a Harmony test base. While the whole TPTP requires
> > > > VC6, I believe I will be able to recompile the only test with a newer
> > > > compiler.
> > > >
> > > > With best regards, Alexei
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Is VS6 needed to appropriately test this issue [1]? I'm not intimate
> > > > with
> > > > > the verifier; are there specific tests that could be run to get a
> > > > general
> > > > > assurance of the passivity?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nathan
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Vasily Levchenko <
> > > > >
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > We've finally established source base and launched our test,
> > > > demonstrating
> > > > > > stability and reliable of verifier code. would you mind to
> > initiate
> > > > with
> > > > > > releasing milestone HDK-M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I've mentioned earlier but wasn't able point to JIRA (
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750) we're
> > extremely
> > > > > > interested this patch to be included.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Stepan Mishura <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<
> > > > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 4/14/08, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<
> > > >
> > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stepan Mishura <
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<
> > > > https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I understood the thread it is doable to make interim
> > release
> > > > > > > > > targeted to assist inclusion of Harmony verifier to the
> > nearest
> > > > > > > > > Eclipse TPTP release. Let me share my understanding of the
> > > > request
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > a possible way to resolve it (please correct me if I'm
> > wrong):
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > > Eclipse team needs an 'official' (i.e. published on the
> > > > web-site as
> > > > > > > > > milestone build) Harmony release. The Eclipse team only
> > > > interesting
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > changes in verifier since M5 so the main criteria for the
> > > > interim
> > > > > > > > > release is no regressions in verifier functionality (i.e. I
> > > > assume
> > > > > > > > > that not critical regressions are acceptable for interim
> > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > believe that is important for having a shorten
> > > > freeze/test/release
> > > > > > > > > period for the interim release)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So I think we may consider:
> > > > > > > > > - making sure that all artifacts required are in place
> > (i.e.
> > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > to the trunk)
> > > > > > > > > - declaring short code freeze
> > > > > > > > > - running testing cycle to see if there are any issues with
> > > > verifier
> > > > > > > > > and overall code. (BTW, are there any know issues with
> > > > verifier
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > needs to be fixed?)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having said that I thought that we are testing up to 6
> > > > snapshots per
> > > > > > > > > week so we may pick up any interim snapshot that has
> > everything
> > > > > > > > > required and shows good testing results, make it 'official'
> > -
> > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > > publish it ... with proper label - M5.5_Eclipse or
> > something
> > > > else to
> > > > > > > > > avoid confusions and to state clearly that the release it
> > > > targeted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the Eclipse TPTP release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does it make sense and works for all parties?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only issue that still unclear for me is ABI
> > requirements:
> > > > has
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Harmony team build/test the code to satisfy ABI or you can
> > do
> > > > it?
> > > > > > > > > (Alexey Petrenko asked this before but I don't see any
> > answer)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I suppose we can do it, but it should be in the released
> > package
> > > > too.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > we're going to share building of the module how it will looks
> > > > like?
> > > > > > > > 1. you'll give us revision
> > > > > > > > 2. and we'll return the compiled libraries
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > or some other way?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK as I see from your answer - the Harmony team has to build
> > > > binaries
> > > > > > > that satisfy ABI (because we publish binaries that are created
> > only
> > > > by
> > > > > > > Harmony committers.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Stepan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <SNIP>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --vvl
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > With best regards,
> > > > Alexei
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --vvl
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --vvl
>
--
With best regards,
Alexei
