Hello, The patch for the problem is prepared [1]. Eclipse starts with this patch. Vasily, I have no idea how to launch a verifier extension. That is why I'm asking you to prepare a unit test which reproduces your problem [2].
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5765 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5764 On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found a bug. int32 return type of read_int32 was incorrectly > replaced with Address. Will submit a patch when kids permit. > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Alexei Fedotov > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > With best regards, > Alexei > -- With best regards, Alexei
