*From:*dominicjw...@gmail.com <dominicjw...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* 23 August 2025 21:49
*To:* 'Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List'
<oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Subject:* RE: [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can be solved with Dom Wise's
patch (Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the hang
Also changed in Activity.hpp (missed this earlier)
-+ void exitCurrentThread(bool dispatch = true);
I’ll put together a proper diff
*From:*dominicjw...@gmail.com <dominicjw...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* 23 August 2025 20:24
*To:* 'Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List'
<oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Subject:* RE: [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can be solved with Dom Wise's
patch (Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the hang
Hi Rony,
Nice work!
As regards to my possible fix I was thinking that it might be a good idea to modify it slightly
with a few additional small changes.
What I’m thinking is that ActivityManager::releaseAccess should have a flag added which
determines whether or not to call dispatchNext(). This is because in
InterpreterInstance::terminate, calling exitCurrentThread() will ultimately call this this and
so will the additional “fallback” ActivityManager::releaseAccess call made later on. It looks
like ActivityManager::dispatchNext removes the head of the activity queue and tries to set it
running. If this is called twice I’m not sure whether this would cause problems.
What might be a good idea is for Activity::exitCurrentThread to have an optional bool “dispatch”
parameter, set to false in this one instance, along with Activity::releaseAccess which it calls,
and have that pass through the parameter to ActivityManager::releaseAccess, modified to only only
call dispatchNext() when the flag is true. This exitCurrentThread would then release the kernel
lock but not immediately try to dispatch another thread. The newly added call to
ActivityManager::releaseAccess (the “fix”) would have the usual call to release (if still held)
the kernel lock AND call dispatchNext, ensuring it always gets called exactly once.
Below is a summary of the changes. Lines with -+ are changed lines. If this seems like a good
idea let me know and I’ll get a fresh SVN tree to make the changes in so that I can provide a
proper diff file. Likewise if there is any critique or suggestion for modification I’m all ears!
In Activity.hpp
-+ void releaseAccess(bool dispatch = true);
In Activity.cpp
void Activity::exitCurrentThread(bool dispatch)
{
….
-+ releaseAccess(dispatch);
}
void Activity::releaseAccess(bool dispatch)
{
…
-+ ActivityManager::releaseAccess(dispatch);
}
}
In ActivityManager.hpp
-+ static void releaseAccess(bool dispatch = true);
In ActivityManager.cpp
void ActivityManager::releaseAccess(bool dispatch)
{
…
++ if (dispatch)
++ {
dispatchNext();
++ }
}
In InterpreterInstance.cpp
bool InterpreterInstance::terminate()
{
…
-+ current->exitCurrentThread(false);
…
-+ current->exitCurrentThread(false);
…
++ ActivityManager::releaseAccess(); // the ‘fix’
Kind Regards,
Dom
*From:*Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>
*Sent:* 23 August 2025 17:13
*To:* oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* [Oorexx-devel] No, only the hang bug left and that can be solved with Dom Wise's patch
(Re: Maybe two different bugs? A question ad fixing the hang
On 22.08.2025 21:58, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 22.08.2025 13:31, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
Having tested the interpreter without Dom's patch with the samples
fxml_25, fxml_26,
fxml_27, and fxml_99 ("BSF4ooRexx850\samples\JavaFX") the following
could be observed
using different versions of Java (Java 8 and in the end Java 24):
* the hang of fxml_99 occurs on all Java versions
* fxml_25, fxml_26, and fxml_27 seem to work on Java 8
o fxml_26 and fxml_27 crash on Java 24
This leads me to believe that there might be two different problems
here. Fixing the hang
somehow causes the crashes of fxml_26 and fxml_27 (and then sometimes
of fxml_25) on
both, Java 8 and Java 24, so they seem to be uncovered earlier.
... cut ...
One important note: here "crashes" should be rephrased to "Java NullPointer
exceptions",
these are *not* crashes of the process! Will runtime debug BSF.CLS, JNI and
the Java side of
the bridge once more, but this may take some time as glimpses of private
life take precedence
this weekend ... ;)
After going through the BSF.CLS, BSF4ooRexx.cc/JNI, Java bridge programs (creating MBs of debug
data) I found out that the version of BSF4ooRexx850 I have been working got tampered by myself!
:-( After inspecting my changes (basically debug statements) I found the culprit (it was an error
in the Java reflection part of Java constructors).
Tested fxml_20, fxml_25, fxml_26, fxml_27, fxml_99 on Java 8, Java 17 and Java 24. They work
thankfully! :)
---
The hang bug (fxml_99) can be fixed with Dom Wise's patch.
So far no feedback to the contrary has been given and the test to apply it a hundred times when
terminating an interpreter instance without any side effects (which would be surprising seeing
the code that gets executed), such that I would like to apply his patch (unlocking the kernel by
invoking "ActivityManager::releaseAccess()" right before invoking
"Intepreter::terminateInterpreterInstance(this)) to trunk:
Index: interpreter/runtime/InterpreterInstance.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/runtime/InterpreterInstance.cpp (revision 13006)
+++ interpreter/runtime/InterpreterInstance.cpp (working copy)
@@ -559,6 +559,7 @@
commandHandlers = OREF_NULL;
requiresFiles = OREF_NULL;
+ActivityManager::releaseAccess();
// tell the main interpreter controller we're gone.
Interpreter::terminateInterpreterInstance(this);
Any objections?
With fixing the hang bug there are no open show-stopper bugs in ooRexx anymore!
---rony
