I would support putting in the fast null-checking fix for M8 and the proper fix at a later date, because it sounds like that will cause the least instability to the codebase for M8.
2008/11/12 chunrong lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > hi, Tim: > The severe uncaught NullPointerException comes with the stub of > vm_rt_monitor_enter. Originally we have two null checkings with that. The > first one is just before the stub and is controled by JIT. The second is > inside the stub. So we had not met the reported exception. > A commit in May (r659128) removeed the null checking (and exception > throwing) inside the stub when doing some optimizations (for HARMONY-5714). > Now we find that the null checking before the stub will also be removed > after some aggressive optimizations. I talked with buqi and he thought that > JIT should never remove such null checking and he is also trying to prepare > a patch to fix this issue. > I think we can have a fast and safe fix for this uncaught exception by > simply adding the null checking code bak to the stub. In this way M8 will > run just like M6, M5 etc. Are there other committers supporting this? We can > also wait for Buqi's (real) fix in JIT to remove the uncaught exception in > M8. > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> chunrong lai wrote: >> > I can reproduce the error. >> > Zhiguo mentioned that we need to reproduce the error with -Xem:opt or >> > -Xem:server. >> >> Do we know what the fix is for this? >> >> Just wondering if this is a candidate for inclusion in M8, since it was >> a regression since M6. If the patch would not invalidate the results of >> our long running tests then I would like us to consider it since the >> crash is severe. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Got it -- thanks. >> >> >> >> Can anyone else reproduce HARMONY-6013 [1] ? It works for me with a >> >> simple test, but if others see a failure that would be a pretty bad >> >> regression... >> >> >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-6013 >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> chunrong lai wrote: >> >>> Thanks. I am uploading the snapshots. >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Sian January < >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>>> Chunrong, are you able to make these available? >> >>>> >> >>>> 2008/11/10 Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>> > Sian January wrote: >> >>>>>> The testing cycle for r710036 [1] has been completed and the test >> >>>>>> results have been discussed [2]. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Two bug fixes [3,4] have been committed since r710036 that we want >> to >> >>>>>> include in M8. r711744 has not been through the extended testing >> >>>>>> cycle, but has been through the standard integrity testing cycle >> with >> >>>>>> the same results as r710036.[5] >> >>>>> Where are the r711744 builds? I don't see them on the snapshots >> >>>>> download page. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We have to vote on the actual archive bundle, not just a SVN tag. >> >>>>> I'd like to take a look and do a final sanity check. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards, >> >>>>> Tim >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> As usual there are some long-standing issues and a few new ones, but >> >>>>>> nothing that has been considederd critical so far. Overall the pass >> >>>>>> rate is better than M7. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If anyone thinks that a particular issue is a blocker for M8 please >> >> say >> >>>> so here. >> >>>>>> Otherwise, shall we declare r711744 as M8 and unfreeze the code >> base? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [1] >> http://people.apache.org/~chunrong/snapshots/r710036/index.html >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/l72lba7xehacqyku >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [3] http://markmail.org/message/6fxgpa2azv27zsol >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/ljqwytbegtsfou2g >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [5] http://people.apache.org/~chunrong/harmony-integrity/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >> >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >> number >> >>>> 741598. >> >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 >> >> 3AU >> > >> > -- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
