I've mentioned patches attached to https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Vasily Levchenko < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Alexei, > Currently java 6 support isn't integrated in Probekit and BCI engine > because its current implementation rely on Harmony verifier are going to > release ;). Patches to BCI introduces implementation of java 6 support and > code for initialization of dynamic agent using instrumentation like Call > Graph, Heap, thread and Dynamic Probekit profiler agent. Static > instrumentator wasn't supposed to be introduced in this work. But I suppose > it's the simplest way to verify work of extension of verifier on > instrumented code. > > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hello Vasily, > > > > I'm trying to understand how to made the simple verifier extension > > test from your static instrumentator. Or, in other words, I'm trying > > to understand the verifier extension interface and how to reproduce > > your bug [1]. I downloaded the probekit sources from dev.eclipse.org > > and tried to understand how do they use a verifier extension: > > > > $ cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/tptp co > > platform/org.eclipse.hyades.probekit > > $ grep -rI recompute_stackmaptable platform/ > > > > I cannot find anything. I started to think that your patch to the bug > > report [2] may contain stack map re-computation example and checked > > your attachments. But it seems that the recompute_stackmaptable > > function is missed there as well. Could you please give more > > directions? For example, could you point to the part of your work > > related to the stack map re-computation? I also wonder if > > recompute_stackmaptable is a part of public interfaces, or I should > > look for something else. > > > > Thank you in advance, > > Alexei > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5764 > > [2] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=148629 > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM, 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? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > With best regards, > > Alexei > > > > > > -- > --vvl -- --vvl
