Alexey, Yes, my initial evaluation was incorrect. I read the test by means of jcf-dump and have missed an exception range which followed the code. Thanks.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Err - so your initial evaluation was not truly correct, right? > The test expects NoSuchMethodError rather than "RI tolerates these two > mismatches and runs without exception" which was very confusing. > > Regards, > Alexey > > 2008/4/28, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Nathan, yes, your understanding is correct. I deleted an assertion and > > the test started producing NoSuchMethodError. BTW, thanks to your > > question, I have fixed class NoSuchMethodException to > > NoSuchMethodError in an explanatory comment in the patch. > > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just so I understand, the resolution is that the assertion was > incorrect. Is > > > that correct? > > > > > > -Nathan > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The issue is resolved in HARMONY-5797. Pavel, could you please take a > > > > look? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5797 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Alexei Fedotov > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, not so easy. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Alexei Fedotov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > For a java guru the following code demonstrates the problem. The > > > > > > following works perfectly on Sun's VM (though it does not > compile > > > > > > well): > > > > > > > > > > > > public class T1 implements I { > > > > > > public void t(int p) { > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > public static void main(String args[]) { > > > > > > (new T1()).t(0); > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > interface I { > > > > > > void t(Object p); > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > This might be a way to convert an integer to a direct > reference. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Alexei Fedotov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Java and class loading gurus, > > > > > > > The JIT reported an assertion due to an error flag on the > > > > following entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 25=org.apache.harmony.vts.test.vm.jvms.instructions.invokeReturn.invokeinterface.invokeinterface07.invokeinterface0703.invokeinterface0703pInterface > > > > > > > name_and_type: 24=<virtualMethod (short)int> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the corresponding interface defined a method with > (int)int > > > > > > > signature, which does not match (short)int. Later the > interface > > > > > > > method (int)int is called as (short)int: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invokeinterface #2=<InterfaceMethod > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.harmony.vts.test.vm.jvms.instructions.invokeReturn.invokeinterface.invokeinterface07.invokeinterface0703.invokeinterface0703pInterface.virtualMethod > > > > > > > (short)int> nargs:2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the other side the test runs smoothly on RI and our VM > in > > > > release > > > > > > > mode. Why RI tolerates these two mismatches and runs without > > > > > > > exception? Should we implement automatic int to short > conversion > > > > for > > > > > > > interfaces? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alexei Fedotov > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Correct. 15 tests passed. As for your suggestion of adding > a > > > > > > > > regression test, I'm not yet convinced we should > duplicate VTS > > > > tests > > > > > > > > as regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I have evaluated the other problem a bit. The > problem is > > > > due to > > > > > > > > the virtual method constant pool entry resolution. Does > this > > > > ring a > > > > > > > > bell? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #2: InterfaceMethodref class: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 25=org.apache.harmony.vts.test.vm.jvms.instructions.invokeReturn.invokeinterface.invokeinterface07.invokeinterface0703.invokeinterface0703pInterface > > > > > > > > name_and_type: 24=<virtualMethod (short)int> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is still a regression, but probably an older one > (since > > > > all your > > > > > > > > runs use a release build). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Stepan Mishura > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I ran the tests locally and they passed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you applied your fix and all these 15 failed tests > > > > passed. Correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though, a number of other > > > > > > > > > > tests failed, I assumed, due to assertions absent in > your > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > build. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, you assumed that tests results for debug and > release > > > > builds are > > > > > > > > > different but this also IMHO may mean other > regressions in > > > > verifier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I don't see any regression test in the patch. > Does it > > > > make sense > > > > > > > > > to create it and add it to DRLVM reg. test suite? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Stepan Mishura > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stenan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I have fixed VTS verifier test failures: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~smishura/r650380/Windows_x86/vtsvm/junit/index.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Esmishura/r650380/Windows_x86/vtsvm/junit/index.html> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So all 15 tests failed because of this bug. > Correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Stepan Mishura > > > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexei, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/24/08, Alexei Fedotov < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Stepan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have fixed more verifier failures, see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which failures did you fix? HARMONY-5785 > > > > description doesn't mention any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Stepan > Mishura > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/22/08, Tim Ellison < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexei Fedotov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand Eclipse IP > > > > committee needs a revision number to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be supplied (no binaries involved). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies, I missed that point in the > > > > discussions around compiler level etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is simply a well-defined > revision > > > > of the verifier code then that is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quite different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The favour Vasily is asking about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is providing him with a slightly > tested > > > > revision. This would suppress > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a normal work of committers for one > day. > > > > Is it something we cannot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > afford? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, in that area of the code I > > > > think it is quite reasonable. It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would not prevent people working in > the > > > > other areas of Harmony (such as GC, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIT, and class library). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, freezing only verifier code can be a > > > > compromise in this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I think it makes sense for other > areas > > > > to ask people not commit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > risky changes (i.e. make feature freeze > and > > > > commit only bug fixes) - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it will help with detection and > resolution > > > > of possible verifier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regressions. I believe that this > acceptable > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could I ask all folks interesting in > > > > M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP release to look > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > through tests failures to understand if > > > > there are regressions in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > verifier or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tests results for r650380 are almost > ready > > > > [1] (testing the next > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > r650564 snapshot will be launched in 2-3 > > > > hours). If there are no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regressions then I think r650380 (or > > > > r650564) can be promoted as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP. If you find verifier > > > > regression please let > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everybody know ASAP - it should be fixed > > > > quickly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r650380/index.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Emloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r650380/index.html> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stepan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, we cannot prevent the > revision > > > > number of the entire repository > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing over time, but you could > nominate > > > > a givne revision number for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > verifier code to be taken by Eclipse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I understand this right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Tim > > > > Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really not convinced this is a > > > > good idea for Harmony, and my > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerns > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are in two parts: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Our schedule should not be > > > > dictated by an external project, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > especially > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when it is their process that > seems to > > > > be setting the artificial time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > limit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not show some flexibility to > meet > > > > our dates? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Our principle delivery > mechanism > > > > is source code. While we make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > available as a convenience we > should > > > > not encourage dependents to put > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies on our build tools. > They > > > > should take source and compile it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > themselves for their own > environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vasily Levchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $subj. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > With best regards, > > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > With best regards, > > > > Alexei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > With best regards, > > Alexei > > > -- With best regards, Alexei
