Hi Alexei, To turn-on logging, please define the following environment variables (example is using Windows syntax):
set MARTINI_LOGGER_DIRECTORY=<full path to an existing directory> set MARTINI_LOGGER_LOG_LEVEL=5 Then start the profiler. A log file named MLog*.log will be generated in MARTINI_LOGGER_DIRECTORY. Please post it here. P.S: What O/S are you using for testing? Thanks, Asaf ----- Original Message ---- From: Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 1:21:00 PM Subject: Re: [drlvm][verifier-ext] launching a profiler Vasily, Asaf, all, We have discussed incorrect stack maps generated for a constructor exception handler when the range invokes another constructor of the same class. The Java 6 verifier specification (JSR 202) has two paragraphs describing this case ending with a claim for "not this case". I started using your profiler to understand what RI expected in the stack map for this case (uninitialized this? or top?). I have instrumented DRLVM to generate a required stack map and now I am trying to launch your profiler. I have composed helpful pieces of advice in one place [1], followed the path, and got the following problem: agent library failed to init: JPIBootLoader. Do you have any experience why this may happen? Is there any way to turn on debugging in your agent? Thanks! [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Verifier_Extension On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Vasily Levchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- With best regards, Alexei ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
