You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Leo Li <li...@gmail.com> on 2006/11/03 07:29:55 UTC
[classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Hi, all
I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise
4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof
out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually
system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is
space for us to improve our performance.
VM
Windows xp2
Redhat Enterprise4
RI
0.985+0.921
0.75+0.717
J9
4.25+2.61
2.888+2.897
drlvm
8.437+5.359
/
*The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter,
junit.samples.AllTests.
For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it
on Harmony wiki[2].
[1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
[2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Leo Li wrote:
> They are the total test run times and I really feel that harmony launches
> slower than RI. It is the most abvious difference not only from the above
> result.
> I have once tested the performance about net and the result ensures me that
> harmony performances almost as good as RI although the test I run cannot be
> said a formal performance test.:)
Nice work. Yes, I've noticed that we do launch slower than the RI. I
figure that's an optimization somewhere down the road...
geir
>
>
> On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
>> > More and more good new from day to day :)
>> >
>> > Thanks, Leo!
>> >
>> > SY, Alexey
>> >
>> > 2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
>> > > Hi, all
>> > > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
>> > > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
>> enterprise
>> > > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
>> becauseof
>> > > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
>> actually
>> > > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
>> > > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
>> > > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows
>> there
>> is
>> > > space for us to improve our performance.
>> > >
>> > > VM
>> > >
>> > > Windows xp2
>> > >
>> > > Redhat Enterprise4
>> > >
>> > > RI
>> > >
>> > > 0.985+0.921
>> > >
>> > > 0.75+0.717
>> > >
>> > > J9
>> > >
>> > > 4.25+2.61
>> > >
>> > > 2.888+2.897
>> > >
>> > > drlvm
>> > >
>> > > 8.437+5.359
>> > >
>> > > /
>> > >
>> > > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
>> latter,
>> > > junit.samples.AllTests.
>> > > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have
>> posted it
>> > > on Harmony wiki[2].
>> > >
>>
>> Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not
>> steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are
>> for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions.
>> And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary
>> startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very
>> first start.
>> I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon
>> enough.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
>> > > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
>> > > --
>> > > Leo Li
>> > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>.
Oh...
I will try it on another machine on next Monday.
Actually these days I have encountered several similar problems on linux
that can be produce on one machine but not another. Both are related with
thread/process creation and memory...
On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Leo,
> I've just tried and could not reproduce DRLVM failure (svn = r470676,
> (Nov 3 2006), Linux/ia32/gcc 3.3.3, debug build, SUSE9).
> I have only JRockit installed and got the following timings:
>
> BEA JRockit 1.5.0
> 4.6/4.6
>
> Harmony j9
> 1.4/1.4
>
> Harmony DRLVM (debug)
> 6.5/6.5
>
>
> 2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> > They are the total test run times and I really feel that harmony
> launches
> > slower than RI. It is the most abvious difference not only from the
> above
> > result.
> > I have once tested the performance about net and the result ensures me
> that
> > harmony performances almost as good as RI although the test I run cannot
> be
> > said a formal performance test.:)
> >
> >
> > On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> > > > More and more good new from day to day :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Leo!
> > > >
> > > > SY, Alexey
> > > >
> > > > 2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> > > > > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
> > > enterprise
> > > > > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
> > > becauseof
> > > > > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
> > > actually
> > > > > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> > > > > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> > > > > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows
> there
> > > is
> > > > > space for us to improve our performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > VM
> > > > >
> > > > > Windows xp2
> > > > >
> > > > > Redhat Enterprise4
> > > > >
> > > > > RI
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.985+0.921
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.75+0.717
> > > > >
> > > > > J9
> > > > >
> > > > > 4.25+2.61
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.888+2.897
> > > > >
> > > > > drlvm
> > > > >
> > > > > 8.437+5.359
> > > > >
> > > > > /
> > > > >
> > > > > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTestsThe
> > > latter,
> > > > > junit.samples.AllTests.
> > > > > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have
> > > posted it
> > > > > on Harmony wiki[2].
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not
> > > steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are
> > > for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions.
> > > And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary
> > > startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very
> > > first start.
> > > I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon
> > > enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> > > > > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> > > > > --
> > > > > Leo Li
> > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Leo Li
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
>
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
Leo,
I've just tried and could not reproduce DRLVM failure (svn = r470676,
(Nov 3 2006), Linux/ia32/gcc 3.3.3, debug build, SUSE9).
I have only JRockit installed and got the following timings:
BEA JRockit 1.5.0
4.6/4.6
Harmony j9
1.4/1.4
Harmony DRLVM (debug)
6.5/6.5
2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> They are the total test run times and I really feel that harmony launches
> slower than RI. It is the most abvious difference not only from the above
> result.
> I have once tested the performance about net and the result ensures me that
> harmony performances almost as good as RI although the test I run cannot be
> said a formal performance test.:)
>
>
> On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> > > More and more good new from day to day :)
> > >
> > > Thanks, Leo!
> > >
> > > SY, Alexey
> > >
> > > 2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> > > > Hi, all
> > > > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> > > > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
> > enterprise
> > > > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
> > becauseof
> > > > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
> > actually
> > > > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> > > > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> > > > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there
> > is
> > > > space for us to improve our performance.
> > > >
> > > > VM
> > > >
> > > > Windows xp2
> > > >
> > > > Redhat Enterprise4
> > > >
> > > > RI
> > > >
> > > > 0.985+0.921
> > > >
> > > > 0.75+0.717
> > > >
> > > > J9
> > > >
> > > > 4.25+2.61
> > > >
> > > > 2.888+2.897
> > > >
> > > > drlvm
> > > >
> > > > 8.437+5.359
> > > >
> > > > /
> > > >
> > > > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
> > latter,
> > > > junit.samples.AllTests.
> > > > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have
> > posted it
> > > > on Harmony wiki[2].
> > > >
> >
> > Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not
> > steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are
> > for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions.
> > And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary
> > startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very
> > first start.
> > I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon
> > enough.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> > > > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> > > > --
> > > > Leo Li
> > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Leo Li
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>.
They are the total test run times and I really feel that harmony launches
slower than RI. It is the most abvious difference not only from the above
result.
I have once tested the performance about net and the result ensures me that
harmony performances almost as good as RI although the test I run cannot be
said a formal performance test.:)
On 11/3/06, Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> > More and more good new from day to day :)
> >
> > Thanks, Leo!
> >
> > SY, Alexey
> >
> > 2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi, all
> > > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> > > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
> enterprise
> > > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
> becauseof
> > > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
> actually
> > > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> > > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> > > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there
> is
> > > space for us to improve our performance.
> > >
> > > VM
> > >
> > > Windows xp2
> > >
> > > Redhat Enterprise4
> > >
> > > RI
> > >
> > > 0.985+0.921
> > >
> > > 0.75+0.717
> > >
> > > J9
> > >
> > > 4.25+2.61
> > >
> > > 2.888+2.897
> > >
> > > drlvm
> > >
> > > 8.437+5.359
> > >
> > > /
> > >
> > > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
> latter,
> > > junit.samples.AllTests.
> > > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have
> posted it
> > > on Harmony wiki[2].
> > >
>
> Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not
> steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are
> for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions.
> And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary
> startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very
> first start.
> I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon
> enough.
>
>
> > >
> > > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> > > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> > > --
> > > Leo Li
> > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2006/11/3, Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>:
> More and more good new from day to day :)
>
> Thanks, Leo!
>
> SY, Alexey
>
> 2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi, all
> > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise
> > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof
> > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually
> > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is
> > space for us to improve our performance.
> >
> > VM
> >
> > Windows xp2
> >
> > Redhat Enterprise4
> >
> > RI
> >
> > 0.985+0.921
> >
> > 0.75+0.717
> >
> > J9
> >
> > 4.25+2.61
> >
> > 2.888+2.897
> >
> > drlvm
> >
> > 8.437+5.359
> >
> > /
> >
> > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter,
> > junit.samples.AllTests.
> > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it
> > on Harmony wiki[2].
> >
Looking at this times, I'd say they are mostly about startup time, not
steady performance per se. I wonder how different these numbers are
for release vs debug builds - guess Leo used debug versions.
And surely there are some tricks RI does to achieve this momentary
startup - as ClassDataSharing or resident-in-memory VM core after very
first start.
I eager to anticipate Harmony will compete strongly in this field soon enough.
> >
> > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> > --
> > Leo Li
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
More and more good new from day to day :)
Thanks, Leo!
SY, Alexey
2006/11/3, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>:
> Hi, all
> I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise
> 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof
> out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually
> system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is
> space for us to improve our performance.
>
>
>
> VM
>
> Windows xp2
>
> Redhat Enterprise4
>
> RI
>
> 0.985+0.921
>
> 0.75+0.717
>
> J9
>
> 4.25+2.61
>
> 2.888+2.897
>
> drlvm
>
> 8.437+5.359
>
> /
>
> *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter,
> junit.samples.AllTests.
> For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it
> on Harmony wiki[2].
>
>
>
> [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> --
> Leo Li
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On 11/7/06, Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Paulex Yang wrote:
> >> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> >>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
> >> >> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
> >> >> TestNG...(including me)
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand - what do you mean?
> >> Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
> >> cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
> >> instead...
> >>
> >> Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
> >
> > If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
> > seems just as capable as TestNG.
> There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4
> comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just
> don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long
> for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:)
This is NOT the impression I got from the various threads. I was under
the impression that we were waiting to demonstrate that TestNG could
be used to execute tests with the various mix-n-match uses cases (OS,
failing, etc). I was waiting for an actual demonstration of the
complex use cases.
It's possible I missed the consensus; I couldn't keep up with all of
the threads.
-Nathan
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
> >> >
> >> > geir
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Paulex - being desperate
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paulex Yang
> >> China Software Development Lab
> >> IBM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Paulex Yang
> China Software Development Lab
> IBM
>
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Paulex Yang wrote:
>> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>> >> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
>> >> TestNG...(including me)
>> >
>> > I don't understand - what do you mean?
>> Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
>> cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
>> instead...
>>
>> Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>
> If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
> seems just as capable as TestNG.
There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4
comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just
don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long
for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:)
>
> -Nathan
>
>> >
>> > geir
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Paulex - being desperate
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulex Yang
>> China Software Development Lab
>> IBM
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Alexei Zakharov <al...@gmail.com>.
> If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
> seems just as capable as TestNG.
IIRC JUnit 4.x doesn't have the rich set of grouping annotations
TestNG has. Moreover (again IIRC), JUnit doesn't have it at all. Only
TestSuites.
Thanks,
2006/11/7, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>:
> On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Paulex Yang wrote:
> > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
> > >> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
> > >> TestNG...(including me)
> > >
> > > I don't understand - what do you mean?
> > Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
> > cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
> > instead...
> >
> > Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>
> If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
> seems just as capable as TestNG.
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paulex Yang wrote:
> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
> >> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
> >> TestNG...(including me)
> >
> > I don't understand - what do you mean?
> Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
> cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
> instead...
>
> Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x
seems just as capable as TestNG.
-Nathan
> >
> > geir
> >
> >>
> >> Paulex - being desperate
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Paulex Yang
> China Software Development Lab
> IBM
>
>
>
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony
classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> On 11/8/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
>>
>> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> > I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this
>> > snippet.
>> >
>> > + if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
>> > + throw new SecurityException("Unsafe");
>> > + }
>> >
>> > I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
>> > 'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
>> > loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
>> > classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
>>
>> Exactly, we are saying that only 'system' code (i.e. that on the
>> bootclasspath) can get an instance of Unsafe because of the inherent
>> dangers in the Unsafe APIs. It is then the responsibility of such
>> system code not to release the instance of Unsafe to application code.
>
> IMO, if this piece of code may cause questions then it makes sense to add
> comments above to the code. Just to avoid similar questions in future.
Sheesh, you'll be asking me to log violations next ;-)
You make a good point. Done in r472443.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Posted by Stepan Mishura <st...@gmail.com>.
On 11/8/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
>
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this
> > snippet.
> >
> > + if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
> > + throw new SecurityException("Unsafe");
> > + }
> >
> > I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
> > 'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
> > loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
> > classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
>
> Exactly, we are saying that only 'system' code (i.e. that on the
> bootclasspath) can get an instance of Unsafe because of the inherent
> dangers in the Unsafe APIs. It is then the responsibility of such
> system code not to release the instance of Unsafe to application code.
IMO, if this piece of code may cause questions then it makes sense to add
comments above to the code. Just to avoid similar questions in future.
Thanks,
Stepan.
Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
--
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony
classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this
> snippet.
>
> + if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
> + throw new SecurityException("Unsafe");
> + }
>
> I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
> 'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
> loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
> classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
Exactly, we are saying that only 'system' code (i.e. that on the
bootclasspath) can get an instance of Unsafe because of the inherent
dangers in the Unsafe APIs. It is then the responsibility of such
system code not to release the instance of Unsafe to application code.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
I just looked at the changes you made and have a question about this snippet.
+ if (VM.callerClassLoader() != null) {
+ throw new SecurityException("Unsafe");
+ }
I just want to understand what this actually means. If the
'callerClassLoader' is null, then the caller is the bootstrap class
loader, correct? Assuming that's correct, we're asserting that only
classes in the bootstrap class loader can call Unsafe, correct?
thanks
-Nathan
On 11/7/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
> > luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
> > VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
> > interfaces, but that may already be done.
>
> yes, we are very close so should finish this off.
>
> Also FYI, I was looking at our Unsafe I've just added a security check
> and extra initialization.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
[classlib] [suncompat] completion (was; Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib
with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1)
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
> interfaces, but that may already be done.
yes, we are very close so should finish this off.
Also FYI, I was looking at our Unsafe I've just added a security check
and extra initialization.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Paulex Yang wrote:
> Richard Liang wrote:
>> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Paulex Yang wrote:
>>> > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>> > >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> > >>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>>> > >>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too
>>> long for
>>> > >>> TestNG...(including me)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I don't understand - what do you mean?
>>> > > Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so
>>> that it
>>> > > cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
>>> > > instead...
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC.
>>>
>>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
>>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
>>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>>
>> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
>> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
> So you mean we can start the TestNG migration work at any time?
No for current IBM VME; Maybe yes for drlvm (I will try it today ;-) )
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> geir
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Paulex - being desperate
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Richard Liang wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Paulex Yang wrote:
>> > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> > >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> > >>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>> > >>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long
>> for
>> > >>> TestNG...(including me)
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't understand - what do you mean?
>> > > Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so
>> that it
>> > > cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
>> > > instead...
>> > >
>> >
>> > What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC.
>>
>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>
> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
So you mean we can start the TestNG migration work at any time?
>
>
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>> [1]
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>> > >>
>> > >> geir
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Paulex - being desperate
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Richard Liang wrote:
>
>
> Richard Liang wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes
>>>>>>> [1] in
>>>>>>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the
>>>>>>> donated IBM
>>>>>>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
>>>>>> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a
>>>>> sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include
>>>> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects" and
>>>> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads". I will try it with DRLVM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually
>>> implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for
>>> TestNG
>>> but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something
>>> here.
>>>
>> Maybe it's true that Unsafe is not actually used because I only tried
>> the simplest test scenario which does not use "parallel running" ;-)
>>
> And yes, when I try to run the tests with annotation
> "@Test(threadPoolSize = 3, invocationCount = 10, timeOut = 10000)",
> the tests hang. I guess the reason is that I use the stubs of Objects
> and Threads. ;-)
Update: Same tests pass on RI and Harmony with DRLVM.
Best regards,
Richard
>
> Best regards,
> Richard
>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Richard Liang wrote:
>
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes
>>>>>> [1] in
>>>>>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated
>>>>>> IBM
>>>>>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>>>>>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
>>>>> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a
>>>> sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>> Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include
>>> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects" and
>>> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads". I will try it with DRLVM.
>>>
>>
>> I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually
>> implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG
>> but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here.
>>
> Maybe it's true that Unsafe is not actually used because I only tried
> the simplest test scenario which does not use "parallel running" ;-)
>
And yes, when I try to run the tests with annotation
"@Test(threadPoolSize = 3, invocationCount = 10, timeOut = 10000)", the
tests hang. I guess the reason is that I use the stubs of Objects and
Threads. ;-)
Best regards,
Richard
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Richard Liang wrote:
>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
>>>>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
>>>>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>>>>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
>>>> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a
>>> sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that.
>>>
>> Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include
>> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects" and
>> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads". I will try it with DRLVM.
>>
>
> I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually
> implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG
> but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here.
>
Maybe it's true that Unsafe is not actually used because I only tried
the simplest test scenario which does not use "parallel running" ;-)
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Richard Liang wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
>>>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
>>>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>>>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
>>> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a
>> sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that.
>
> Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include
> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects" and
> "org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads". I will try it with DRLVM.
I'm still confused. If you are using stubs that do not actually
implement Objects and Threads do you mean that we need Unsafe for TestNG
but it doesn't actually use it? I feel that I'm missing something here.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Richard Liang wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
>>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
>>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>>>
>> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
>> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
>>
>
> Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a
> sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that.
>
>
Sorry ;-) I'm using IBM VME which does not include
"org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Objects" and
"org.apache.harmony.kernel.vm.Threads". I will try it with DRLVM.
> We need to agree on the extensions to the luni kernel classes so that we
> can implement them in the IBM VME too (and then share the Unsafe in
> suncompat).
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Richard Liang wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
>> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
>> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
>> interfaces, but that may already be done.
>
> Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
> luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
Why do you need to put the stubs on the bootclasspath? and there is a
sun.misc.Unsafe in the DRLVM kernel.jar so I expect you are using that.
We need to agree on the extensions to the luni kernel classes so that we
can implement them in the IBM VME too (and then share the Unsafe in
suncompat).
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Richard Liang <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 11/7/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paulex Yang wrote:
> > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Paulex Yang wrote:
> > >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > >>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
> > >>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
> > >>> TestNG...(including me)
> > >>
> > >> I don't understand - what do you mean?
> > > Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
> > > cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
> > > instead...
> > >
> >
> > What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC.
>
> I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
> luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
> VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
> interfaces, but that may already be done.
Yes, I just run testNG successfully by appending suncompat.jar and
luni-kernel-stubs.jar to bootclasspath ;-)
>
> -Nathan
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/
>
> >
> > > Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
> > >>
> > >> geir
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Paulex - being desperate
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Richard Liang
China Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On 11/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Paulex Yang wrote:
> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
> >>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
> >>> TestNG...(including me)
> >>
> >> I don't understand - what do you mean?
> > Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
> > cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
> > instead...
> >
>
> What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC.
I believe we're down to agreeing to the Objects/Threads classes [1] in
luni-kernel and getting them implemented in DRLVM and the donated IBM
VM. I believe the Unsafe class needs to be re-implemented with these
interfaces, but that may already be done.
-Nathan
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/classlib/trunk/modules/luni-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/harmony/kernel/vm/
>
> > Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Paulex - being desperate
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Paulex Yang wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Paulex Yang wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
>>> TestNG...(including me)
>>
>> I don't understand - what do you mean?
> Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
> cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
> instead...
>
What's left for j.u.c? I lost track of that Saga, IIRC.
> Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>>
>> geir
>>
>>>
>>> Paulex - being desperate
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
> Paulex Yang wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
>> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
>> TestNG...(including me)
>
> I don't understand - what do you mean?
Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it
cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit
instead...
Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:)
>
> geir
>
>>
>> Paulex - being desperate
>>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Paulex Yang wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
> TestNG...(including me)
I don't understand - what do you mean?
geir
>
> Paulex - being desperate
>>
>> Leo Li wrote:
>>> Ya, I think we can.
>>> I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite
>>> different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them?
>>> Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing
>>> now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration
>>> with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4
>>>> testing?
>>>>
>>>> -Nathan
>>>>
>>>> On 11/3/06, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hi, all
>>>> > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
>>>> > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
>>>> enterprise
>>>> > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
>>>> becauseof
>>>> > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
>>>> actually
>>>> > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
>>>> > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
>>>> > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows
>>>> there
>>>> is
>>>> > space for us to improve our performance.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > VM
>>>> >
>>>> > Windows xp2
>>>> >
>>>> > Redhat Enterprise4
>>>> >
>>>> > RI
>>>> >
>>>> > 0.985+0.921
>>>> >
>>>> > 0.75+0.717
>>>> >
>>>> > J9
>>>> >
>>>> > 4.25+2.61
>>>> >
>>>> > 2.888+2.897
>>>> >
>>>> > drlvm
>>>> >
>>>> > 8.437+5.359
>>>> >
>>>> > /
>>>> >
>>>> > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
>>>> latter,
>>>> > junit.samples.AllTests.
>>>> > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have
>>>> posted
>>>> it
>>>> > on Harmony wiki[2].
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
>>>> > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
>>>> > --
>>>> > Leo Li
>>>> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by Paulex Yang <pa...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> did we decide not to go to TestNG?
Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for
TestNG...(including me)
Paulex - being desperate
>
> Leo Li wrote:
>> Ya, I think we can.
>> I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite
>> different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them?
>> Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing
>> now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration
>> with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:)
>>
>>
>> On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4
>>> testing?
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>> On 11/3/06, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi, all
>>> > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
>>> > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
>>> enterprise
>>> > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
>>> becauseof
>>> > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
>>> actually
>>> > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
>>> > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
>>> > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows
>>> there
>>> is
>>> > space for us to improve our performance.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > VM
>>> >
>>> > Windows xp2
>>> >
>>> > Redhat Enterprise4
>>> >
>>> > RI
>>> >
>>> > 0.985+0.921
>>> >
>>> > 0.75+0.717
>>> >
>>> > J9
>>> >
>>> > 4.25+2.61
>>> >
>>> > 2.888+2.897
>>> >
>>> > drlvm
>>> >
>>> > 8.437+5.359
>>> >
>>> > /
>>> >
>>> > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
>>> latter,
>>> > junit.samples.AllTests.
>>> > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have
>>> posted
>>> it
>>> > on Harmony wiki[2].
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
>>> > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
>>> > --
>>> > Leo Li
>>> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided
by JUnit4.1
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
did we decide not to go to TestNG?
Leo Li wrote:
> Ya, I think we can.
> I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite
> different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them?
> Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing
> now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration
> with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:)
>
>
> On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4
>> testing?
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>> On 11/3/06, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, all
>> > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
>> > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
>> enterprise
>> > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
>> becauseof
>> > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think
>> actually
>> > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
>> > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
>> > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there
>> is
>> > space for us to improve our performance.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > VM
>> >
>> > Windows xp2
>> >
>> > Redhat Enterprise4
>> >
>> > RI
>> >
>> > 0.985+0.921
>> >
>> > 0.75+0.717
>> >
>> > J9
>> >
>> > 4.25+2.61
>> >
>> > 2.888+2.897
>> >
>> > drlvm
>> >
>> > 8.437+5.359
>> >
>> > /
>> >
>> > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
>> latter,
>> > junit.samples.AllTests.
>> > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted
>> it
>> > on Harmony wiki[2].
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
>> > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
>> > --
>> > Leo Li
>> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Leo Li <li...@gmail.com>.
Ya, I think we can.
I would like the new features in JUnit4, but it is written in a quite
different style from current harmony test codes. Migrate them?
Besides, it is related with the thread of JUnit best practice discussing
now. We need to make a decision since we can merge the task of migration
with the action to enforce JUnit best practice.:)
On 11/4/06, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4
> testing?
>
> -Nathan
>
> On 11/3/06, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, all
> > I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> > With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat
> enterprise
> > 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread
> becauseof
> > out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually
> > system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> > application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> > Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there
> is
> > space for us to improve our performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > VM
> >
> > Windows xp2
> >
> > Redhat Enterprise4
> >
> > RI
> >
> > 0.985+0.921
> >
> > 0.75+0.717
> >
> > J9
> >
> > 4.25+2.61
> >
> > 2.888+2.897
> >
> > drlvm
> >
> > 8.437+5.359
> >
> > /
> >
> > *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The
> latter,
> > junit.samples.AllTests.
> > For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted
> it
> > on Harmony wiki[2].
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> > [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> > --
> > Leo Li
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
> >
>
--
Leo Li
China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib]Harmony classlib with J9 VM passes all the tests provided by JUnit4.1
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
Assuming we get this functioning, does this mean we can use JUnit 4 testing?
-Nathan
On 11/3/06, Leo Li <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all
> I have just tested JUnit4.1 on Harmony.
> With J9 VM, harmony passes both on windows xp2 and redhat enterprise
> 4.0. While drlvm fails on linux, which fails to create new thread becauseof
> out-of-memory-error. Since it can always be reproduced, I think actually
> system doesnot lack memory at the time. So I reported it as an
> application-oriented bugs as JIRA [1].
> Besides I have got the time used in these tests which shows there is
> space for us to improve our performance.
>
>
>
> VM
>
> Windows xp2
>
> Redhat Enterprise4
>
> RI
>
> 0.985+0.921
>
> 0.75+0.717
>
> J9
>
> 4.25+2.61
>
> 2.888+2.897
>
> drlvm
>
> 8.437+5.359
>
> /
>
> *The former data represents the time to run junit.tests.AllTests The latter,
> junit.samples.AllTests.
> For detailed information, including how to run tests, I have posted it
> on Harmony wiki[2].
>
>
>
> [1]http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2060
> [2]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/JUnit
> --
> Leo Li
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>