If the parsing event handler is storing references to any of the proxy
objects in other ooRexx objects (arrays, etc.), those objects will still be
anchored. The uninits are definitely interleaved with execution in the
sample program, so problems from this point are probably in how the code in
question is managing the object references.
Rick
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>
wrote:
> Retested today quite exhaustively (see below), and indeed I cannot create
> any Rexx crashes anymore, which is *really* great!
>
> ---
>
> However, retesting today, I just realized, that all the uninits only start
> to run *after* the test script ends!
>
> Running the test script on the patched interpreter with "test01.rex 2>&1 |
> gvim -" will yield (the "duration:" output is the last statement of the
> program):
>
> - 100.000 ABC objects created in native code
>
> ... InitializeRII(): gRI=[7DBA8178]
> started: 2017-05-01T14:57:18.003000
> ... about to create [100000] ABC objects by native code...*ended:*
> 2017-05-01T14:57:33.703000
> duration: 00:00:15.700000
> *** ::UNINIT: [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-88726]@[FFFFFFFFFF95351217]
> *** ::UNINIT: [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-89421]@[FFFFFFFFFF9526FCC7]
> *** ::UNINIT: [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-90116]@[FFFFFFFFFF9518E777]
> ... cut ...
>
> - 250.000 ABC objects created in native code
>
> ... InitializeRII(): gRI=[7DBA8178]
> started: 2017-05-01T14:51:54.135000
> ... about to create [250000] ABC objects by native code...
> ended: 2017-05-01T14:53:42.775000
> duration: 00:01:48.640000
> *** ::UNINIT: [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-42126]@[FFFFFFFFFF879A4AE7]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-195246]@[FFFFFFFFFFA7279DCF]
> *** ::UNINIT: [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-12005]@[FFFFFFFFFF829BF5F7]
> ... cut ...
>
> - 500.000 ABC objects created in native code
>
> ... InitializeRII(): gRI=[7DBA8178]
> started: 2017-05-01T14:57:46.935000
> ... about to create [500000] ABC objects by native code...
> ended: 2017-05-01T15:04:06.482000
> duration: 00:06:19.547000
> *** ::UNINIT: [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-42126]@[FFFFFFFFFF879A4AE7]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-120397]@[FFFFFFFFFF9A8F9EC7]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-195246]@[FFFFFFFFFFA7279DCF]
> ... cut ...
>
> - 750.000 ABC objects created in native code
>
> ... InitializeRII(): gRI=[7DBA8178]
> started: 2017-05-01T15:05:09.713000
> ... about to create [750000] ABC objects by native code...
> ended: 2017-05-01T15:25:33.533000
> duration: 00:20:23.820000
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-166273]@[FFFFFFFFFF9DD3FCF7]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-416933]@[FFFFFFFFFFC109519F]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-516807]@[FFFFFFFFFFCE93FC07]
> ... cut...
>
> - 1.000.000 ABC objects created in native code
>
> ... InitializeRII(): gRI=[7DBA8178]
> started: 2017-05-01T15:28:40.547000
> ... about to create [1000000] ABC objects by native code...
> ended: 2017-05-01T15:58:49.271000
> duration: 00:30:08.724000
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-795014]@[FFFFFFFFFFFAFEA5D7]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-520973]@[FFFFFFFFFFCAA6A6C7]
> *** ::UNINIT:
> [ABC-from_native_createTestObject-240938]@[FFFFFFFFFFAD9AA757]
>
>
> (In all tests the number of uninits that ran upon program completion
> corresponds to the number of ABC objects created except for the last one
> where two uninits are missing.)
>
> Re-running the original program (using a Java SAX parser that causes
> callbacks into ooRexx via JNI/native code) that caused the "Error 5: System
> resources exhausted" on the 32-bit ooRexx interpreter still causes the
> error (around parsing the 84900th XML element).
>
> ---rony
>
>
> On 30.04.2017 22:18, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>
> Applying your patch and re-running the problematic test-cases, it seems to
> be indeed the case that the problem is solved! Many thanks!
>
> ---rony
>
> On 30.04.2017 13:00, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>
> On 30.04.2017 12:53, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
> I want to verify something first. In this scenario, Rexx code makes a call
> to a Java method (i.e., the parser) which then makes a lot of callbacks all
> on the same thread?
>
> Yes.
>
> If so, then I think I might see where the problem could be. The code that
> handles nested thread attaches (that is, attaching to a thread that already
> exists) appears to hold on to any allocated objects until it returns to the
> original exit point (in your case, the initial call to the parser).
>
> This may take a little while to figure out the details of a fix, but I at
> least know where to start. You might want to open a bug indicating there
> appears to be an AttachThread()/DetachThread() memory leak.
>
> Opened a bug: <https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1445/>
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1445/>.
>
> ---rony
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <
> rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>
>> Having slept I went over the debug statements, just to learn that I
>> concluded wrongly yesterday: the reference decreases did not come from the
>> Rexx objects with uninits, but from the Java side! :(
>>
>> With new debug statements on the Rexx side (in the destructores) it is
>> clear that no proxy Rexx object turns into garbage before the program gets
>> interrupted with a syntax error.
>>
>> Will start over analyzing the codepaths, creating debug programs and
>> report back, once I am done, which might take a day or two.
>> ---rony
>>
>>
>> On 29.04.2017 21:53, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Rony G. Flatscher <
>> rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>>> The class object (for the BSF class and also its subclasses) is (get)
>>> created in the BSF.CLS package, which gets required. So it (and its
>>> subclasses) should get created only once in this test case.
>>>
>>> The ooRexx peer objects are instances of the .BSF class, which defines
>>> an uninit method.
>>>
>>> Ad interpreter safepoints:
>>>
>>> - in this case there is a pending external Rexx function call that
>>> kicks of the SAX parser's parsing and only will return after the SAX
>>> parser
>>> concluded its work,
>>> - in the meantime each callback from the SAX parser will cause a
>>> call via JNI to Rexx, where each such callback will do an AttachThread()
>>> in
>>> native code and before returning a DetachThread().
>>>
>>> The uninits run, so these interpreter safepoints should be reached.
>>>
>> The return from the ooRexx code at the end of the event call is one
>> safepoint, but the arguments you passed will still be protected at this
>> point. However, these objects will not be processed until the next time a
>> garbage collection is required and then not until the next uninit point is
>> hit.
>>
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Maybe one more thing: the ooRexx peer objects that get created in native
>>> code are stored in a RexxArray object as they server as arguments for the
>>> SendMessage() function. So I assume (pure speculation!) that first the
>>> RexxArray object needs to get destroyed in order for its contained objects
>>> to become eligible for destruction. Maybe that explains why the Rexx peer
>>> objects currently do not get their uninits run at a much faster pace.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this causes much of the delay, since these objects don't get
>> moved to the uninit queue until the next time it is necessary to run the
>> garbage collector. It is highly unlikely that more than a few objects would
>> be affected by this, but you might give it a try and see what happens.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>> ---rony
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29.04.2017 21:32, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>> Running the garbage collector will not force the uninit methods to be
>>> run. When the garbage collector runs, any newly dead objects with uninit
>>> methods are marked as being ready to have the uninit method run. At some
>>> later time, when the interpreter is at a safe point, then the objects with
>>> pending uninit methods will be processed. These are major boundaries such
>>> as return from a method or call or thread termination.
>>>
>>> Since you are creating class objects, things can get delayed even
>>> further since the class object will not become "dead" until all of its
>>> instances are first "dead". It then gets moved to the uninit queue for
>>> processing.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Rony G. Flatscher <
>>> rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today, I have started to analyze the code-paths through BSF4ooRexx
>>>> (Java, c++, ooRexx-package BSF.CLS).
>>>>
>>>> As I have not found any "obvious" cause for the observed behaviour yet,
>>>> I have started to analyse the changes in the Java registry (that I have
>>>> full control of).
>>>>
>>>> Maybe first a sketch, how Java objects get proxied by ooRexx objects:
>>>>
>>>> - a Java object that is to be sent to ooRexx as a return or
>>>> argument value will get stored together with a reference counter in a
>>>> Java
>>>> registry (using a ConcurrentHashMap), the index is a string which will
>>>> get
>>>> passed on to Rexx instead of the Java object,
>>>> - the Rexx side will create an instance of the class .BSF (or a
>>>> subclass of it) supplying the Java object's index string which is used
>>>> as
>>>> the objecname for the ooRexx peer object
>>>> - The BSF class has a destructor method (uninit) which will
>>>> cause a call to the Java side to reduce the Java object's reference
>>>> counter; if the Java reference counter drops to 0 the Java object
>>>> will be
>>>> removed from the Java registry
>>>>
>>>> Running the SAX-example serving as the test case until 250 startElement
>>>> SAX-callbacks (each callback from Java to Rexx will cause an
>>>> AttachThread(), creating the ooRexx peer objects for the arguments, sending
>>>> the Rexx message, upon return doing a DetachThread()) have been carried out
>>>> (in addition there are plenty of other SAX-callbacks) and using debug
>>>> statements for adding and removing entries to/from the Java registry, this
>>>> is what I can observe:
>>>>
>>>> - the ooRexx destructors run,
>>>> - *however* the rate of new ooRexx peer objects that get created
>>>> (by Java objects that are sent to Rexx) is much higher than the rate of
>>>> ooRexx peer objects that get garbage collected by ooRexx, which causes a
>>>> continuous increase in Rexx objects over time
>>>> - indeed, the ooRexx peer objects get destroyed eventually,
>>>> causing the Java refcounters to be decreased
>>>> - it seems that not all ooRexx peer objects that have turned
>>>> into garbage get destroyed in the garbage collection runs
>>>> - still (hence), the amount of ooRexx peer objects increases
>>>> quickly at runtime as the flux of callbacks from Java continues
>>>> - at the end of the program (in this case forcing an error to stop
>>>> it by issuing a 'say 1/0') all uninits run the reference counters on the
>>>> Java objects in the Java registry drop to 0!
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way in ooRexx to have the garbage collector be run (like in
>>>> Java's System.gc() or Runtime.getRuntime.gc())?
>>>>
>>>> Such a possibility might help to debug/tame this "run-away" scenario.
>>>>
>>>> ---rony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27.04.2017 16:56, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you! Will report back, once I concluded the analysis, which may
>>>> take a while.
>>>>
>>>> ---rony
>>>>
>>>> On 27.04.2017 16:53, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The memory manager will force any pending uninits to be run before it
>>>> gives up and issues the out of resources error messages. I really suspect
>>>> something in the way your code is creating the proxies and tracking them is
>>>> preventing the objects from being identified as dead objects, so these
>>>> objects will just keep accumulating. The more live objects locked in
>>>> memory, the longer a GC cycle will take because there is a larger live set
>>>> to mark.
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <
>>>> rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Further information, using the initial e-mail to keep all relevant
>>>>> information in one e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I uninstalled the 32-bit ooRexx 5.0beta and installed the 64-bit
>>>>> ooRexx 5.0beta (both from SourceForge, downloaded February 4th 2017).
>>>>>
>>>>> This time the program ran successfully to the end:
>>>>>
>>>>> - there were more than 247,000 XML elements processed
>>>>> - as already mentioned this may translate into million(s) call
>>>>> backs from Java to Rexx as all SAX events will cause callbacks to
>>>>> Rexx
>>>>> - some of these callbacks carry Java objects as arguments
>>>>> which will get wrapped as a peer ooRexx object (ultimately an
>>>>> instance of
>>>>> the class .BSF that has an uninit method defined), namely the
>>>>> Java types:
>>>>> "char[]", "Attributes", "Local" from the callbacks
>>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/org/xml/sax/Conte
>>>>> ntHandler.html
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/org/xml/sax/ContentHandler.html>
>>>>> >
>>>>> - there are no return values (all callbacks are defined to
>>>>> be void)
>>>>>
>>>>> - it took a total of 2:37 hours to SAX-parse a 10MB XML file,
>>>>> - the SAX-parsing was over after 1:45 hours
>>>>> - the program constantly slowed down and in between paused
>>>>> for a while (which got longer and longer over time)
>>>>> - after the SAX-parseing was over the Rexx program needed
>>>>> another 0:52 hours to complete
>>>>> - speculating/assuming that in this time all the uninits got
>>>>> executed (which is fine)
>>>>>
>>>>> - it consumed 8.7GB of memory
>>>>> - ProcessExplorer reports a
>>>>> - Physical Memory "PeekWorking Set" of 8.795.796 K
>>>>> - Virtual Memory "Virtual Size" of 13.404.424 K with "Peak
>>>>> Private Bytes" of 9.138.664 K
>>>>>
>>>>> - it used 24% of the CPU over all 2:37 hours
>>>>> - ProcessExplorer reports a
>>>>> - "Kernel Time" of 0:01:10.184
>>>>> - "User Time" of 2.32.57.960
>>>>> - "Total Time" of 2:34:08.144
>>>>> - "Cycles": 23.898.290.997.693
>>>>>
>>>>> Will check the BSF4ooRexx call and code paths.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---rony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26.04.2017 20:28, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A student is using BSF4ooRexx to parse a huge XML file using Java's
>>>>> SAX parser.
>>>>>
>>>>> The SAX (simple API for XML) works with a callback concept. In order
>>>>> to be eligible for these SAX callbacks the ContentHandler interface
>>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/org/xml/sax/Conte
>>>>> ntHandler.html>
>>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/org/xml/sax/ContentHandler.html>
>>>>> must be implemented, which the Rexx program does with the help of
>>>>> BSF4ooRexx.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result each single SAX event will cause an appropriate Rexx
>>>>> message to be generated and dispatched. The Rexx message is named after
>>>>> the ContentHandler method name and will receive all arguments documented
>>>>> there. All arguments are processed in native code, a Rexx array object
>>>>> will
>>>>> get created from the Java arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> This works and was presented on one of the International Rexx
>>>>> symposiums and has become part of my lecture using Java camouflaged as
>>>>> ooRexx with the help of BSF4ooRexx. Here is a link to the symposium which
>>>>> contains links to the slides: <http://rexxla.org/events/2013
>>>>> /schedule.html> <http://rexxla.org/events/2013/schedule.html>.
>>>>> Now, a student is in the need to parse a rather huge XML file (10 MB)
>>>>> and uses the SAX parser. She always hits the Rexx "Error 5: System
>>>>> resources exhausted"! I asked her to come up with a very small program to
>>>>> demonstrate the error and I am able to reproduce it reliably!
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the rather short Rexx program:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> #!/usr/bin/rexx
>>>>>
>>>>> parse arg xmlFile
>>>>> if xmlFile="" then
>>>>> XMLFile="..\LB-HB.onlb"
>>>>>
>>>>> if sysFileExists(xmlFile)=.false then
>>>>> do
>>>>> say "File" pp(xmlFile) "does not exist, aborting."
>>>>> exit -1
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> rexxObject=.saxHandler~new();
>>>>>
>>>>> javaProxy=BSFCreateRexxProxy(rexxObject,,"org.xml.sax.ContentHandler")
>>>>> parser=bsf.loadClass("org.xml.sax.helpers.XMLReaderFactory")~createXMLReader
>>>>> parser~setContentHandler(javaProxy)
>>>>> eh=.errorHandler~new
>>>>> javaEH=BsfCreateRexxProxy(eh,,"org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler")
>>>>> parser~setErrorHandler(javaEH)
>>>>>
>>>>> signal on syntax
>>>>> start=.dateTime~new
>>>>> say pp(start)": start of parsing"
>>>>> parser~parse(XMLFile)
>>>>> end=.dateTime~new
>>>>> say pp(end)": end of parsing"
>>>>> say "done, needed:" pp(end-start)
>>>>> exit
>>>>>
>>>>> syntax:
>>>>> say "error at" rexxObject~nrOfElements "element"
>>>>> co=condition('o')
>>>>> say ppCondition2(co)
>>>>>
>>>>> ::requires "BSF.CLS" /* get the Java support */
>>>>> ::requires "rgf_util2.rex"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ::CLASS "SaxHandler" -- a Rexx content handler
>>>>> ("org.xml.sax.ContentHandler")
>>>>>
>>>>> ::attribute nrOfElements
>>>>>
>>>>> ::METHOD init --ooRexx constructor
>>>>> expose nrOfElements
>>>>> nrOfElements=0
>>>>>
>>>>> ::METHOD startElement
>>>>> expose nrOfElements
>>>>> USE ARG uri, localName, qName, attributes
>>>>> nrOfElements+=1
>>>>> if nrOfElements//1000=0 then say nrOfElements "elements so far ..."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ::METHOD characters -- the callback method for characters (text)
>>>>> USE ARG charArray, start, length
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ::METHOD endElement
>>>>> USE ARG uri, localName, qName, attributes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ::method unknown
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ::class ErrorHandler
>>>>> ::method unknown
>>>>> use arg methName, argArray
>>>>> exception=argArray[1]s
>>>>> .error~say(methName": " "line="exception~getLineNumber
>>>>> ",col="exception~getColumnNumber": " pp(exception~getMessage))
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> As you might see, there is nothing "special" going on here, other than
>>>>> being able to supply a Rexx object as the callback object for the Java
>>>>> implemented SAX parser! It seems that running all these callback from Java
>>>>> to Rexx will cause eventually that ooRexx gets exhausted of system
>>>>> resources. While running the program it can be observed that from time to
>>>>> time there are little lags as if some garbage collecting takes place.
>>>>> Eventually the error 5 is thrown, while executing in native code:
>>>>>
>>>>> result_obj=rtc->SendMessage(ro, c_msg, ra); // with arguments
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the following error message only gives the numbers of
>>>>> XML elements that the SAX parser reported. In reality, *all* callbacks are
>>>>> carried out from Java to Rexx, the unprocessed ones will be intercepted by
>>>>> the Rexx UNKNOWN method. So there is a flurry of context switches and
>>>>> creation of Rexx array objects for the arguments and the like. Here is the
>>>>> error message on my system.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 83000 elements so far ...
>>>>> 84000 elements so far ...
>>>>> error at 84926 element
>>>>> [ADDITIONAL] =[an Array (2 items) id#_-1457160369]
>>>>> ["BSF4ooRexx/routine/BSF(), error 3: Java exception
>>>>> occurred: [org.rexxla.bsf.engines.rexx.RexxException:
>>>>> BSF4ooRexx/routine/jniRexxSendMessageToRexxObject(), error 4:" || "0A"x
>>>>> || " *-* Compiled method ""OBJECTNAME="" with scope ""Object""." ||
>>>>> "0A"x || "Error 5 running C:\Program Files (x86)\BSF4ooRexx\BSF.CLS line
>>>>> 2644: System resources exhausted." || "0A"x || "Error 5.0: message
>>>>> n/a]"]
>>>>> [org.rexxla.bsf.engines.rexx.RexxException@182d820
>>>>> id#_-1478994985]
>>>>> [CODE] =[40.900]
>>>>> [CONDITION] =[SYNTAX]
>>>>> [DESCRIPTION]=[]
>>>>> [ERRORTEXT] =[Incorrect call to routine.]
>>>>> [INSTRUCTION]=[SIGNAL]
>>>>> [MESSAGE] =["BSF4ooRexx/routine/BSF(), error 3: Java exception
>>>>> occurred: [org.rexxla.bsf.engines.rexx.RexxException:
>>>>> BSF4ooRexx/routine/jniRexxSendMessageToRexxObject(), error 4:" || "0A"x
>>>>> || " *-* Compiled method ""OBJECTNAME="" with scope ""Object""." ||
>>>>> "0A"x || "Error 5 running C:\Program Files (x86)\BSF4ooRexx\BSF.CLS line
>>>>> 2644: System resources exhausted." || "0A"x || "Error 5.0: message
>>>>> n/a]."]
>>>>> [PACKAGE] =[a Package id#_-2109388833]
>>>>> [POSITION] =[25]
>>>>> [PROGRAM] =[F:\tmp\orx\kirisits\20170425\SAX_noAlerts.rxj]
>>>>> [PROPAGATED] =[1]
>>>>> [RC] =[40]
>>>>> [STACKFRAMES]=[a List (4 items) id#_-1467321073]
>>>>> [ *-* Compiled routine "BSF". id#_-1939043649]
>>>>> [ 1811 *-* res=BSF( "invoke",
>>>>> "com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.parsers.SAXParser@117ae12", "PARSE" ,
>>>>> a.1 ) id#_-1938526417]
>>>>> [ 1813 *-* interpret code ")" -- execute this
>>>>> dynamically created Rexx string id#_-1937397361]
>>>>> [ 25 *-* parser~parse(XMLFile) id#_-1936143753]
>>>>> [TRACEBACK] =[a List (4 items) id#_-1458379065]
>>>>> [ *-* Compiled routine "BSF".]
>>>>> [ 1811 *-* res=BSF( "invoke",
>>>>> "com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.parsers.SAXParser@117ae12", "PARSE" ,
>>>>> a.1 )]
>>>>> [ 1813 *-* interpret code ")" -- execute this
>>>>> dynamically created Rexx string]
>>>>> [ 25 *-* parser~parse(XMLFile)]
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> The traceback points to the invocation of the SAX parser from Rexx
>>>>> which only returns upon completion of the Java parse method, or in this
>>>>> case when an error interrupts the program. --- So now my question/request:
>>>>> how to debug this problem/error? How can I get more information from the
>>>>> ooRexx interpreter? How can one determine what kind of "system resources"
>>>>> got exhausted and what the cause would be? Can one e.g. determine how many
>>>>> Rexx objects there are and how many are dead, in the need of getting
>>>>> garbage collected? In this case whenever (on each SAX callback) the Java
>>>>> side invokes the native code which then sends the message to the Rexx
>>>>> object there will be an AttachThread() followed by a DetachThread().
>>>>> Please
>>>>> advise! ---rony
>>>>>
>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
