Alexey Varlamov [26/Sep/06 05:11 AM] Evgueni, thank you, quite impressive work! Unfortunately patch is so huge it is hard to understand at once.
I understand your concern (about reformatting)... I feel very-very uncomfortable when I study purely formatted code. It always hard to understand some one's code especially if it is hard to read. That was not my intention to fix indenting I just can't study such code and reformat it on the fly.... Sorry, I don't know how to switch my patch to the original formatting.
And what really bothers, is that about half of it is just reformatting :( Can't we really go without white space changes and renaming of parameters\local vars???
Its definitely much less than the half of the patch.
Kind request: could you please describe shortly what is done in TM -
which >essential changes & enhancements? I think a lot of people are interested in answer to this question. Do you? Let me get a break and I will come up with details.... On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2006, at 9:39 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote: > > > On 9/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Wanted to start a new thread with better subject line. > >> > >> Evgueni... two things: > >> > >> 1) by your own admission, there are problems with the patch, namely > >> tests failing. > > I do belive this is not the patch problems. I think this patch > > disclose existing problems with condition variables implementation. > > > >> You also note that c-unit tests have to be turned off > >> because they no longer link. > > There is a hack in current cunit tests. Two methods are stubed > > vm_attach and vm_detach. That's who linking problem is workarounded. > > We can't go forward with this.... > > Who can we badger into fixing this? > > > > >> > >> 2) Alexey V is hoping for a description of the changes, due to the > >> size and mix of reformatting changes. > >> > >> I don't mind a little breakage to move forward, but as we're just > >> getting DRLVM stable after the launcher change, it might be better if > >> we don't have to remove major things like c-unit tests to make that > >> forward movement. > > I believe it is a question of one day or even less to get it fixed by > > original test authors. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with cunit > > tests internals. Ofcourse I can fix it by myself but need a little bit > > more time.... > > Lets see if we can shame them into fixing it... :) > > Shame c-unit test authors! Shame c-unit test authors! Ok, I'm expecting a lot of anger on me form c-unit test authors ... :-) Sorry, guys... > > (goes off to look for patch...) > > geir > > > > > Evgueni > >> > >> geir > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
