You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> on 2008/03/28 03:22:55 UTC
[drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
-Nathan
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>.
Nathan Beyer said the following on 31.03.2008 4:57:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Gregory Shimansky
> <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 29 марта 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Alexey Varlamov
>> >
>> > <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > 2008/3/28, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>:
>> > > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
>> > >
>> > > I guess the opposite, there were no specific reasons to upgrade so far.
>> >
>> > True, but it would be nice to eliminate custom patches, if possible.
>> >
>> > > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
>> > > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
>> > >
>> > > Looking through APR patches if they're still actual/compatible and
>> > > testing, the more the better - should be enough.
>> >
>> > Is anyone familiar with the current patches? Any specific tests that
>> > might be considered regression tests for those patches?
>>
>> I created a patch for working_vm/make/resources/patches/apr/misc/win32/env.c.
>> The problem was with apr_env_get when the requested variable is defined but
>> has no value (empty string). APR used to treat it as an undefined variable.
>> The test exists in VM acceptance tests but it requires the system to have a
>> variable defined in such way (I encountered the bug on a new windows
>> installation with no printer, it had PRINTER variable defined as "").
>
> Was this change made on top of 1.2.6 or a different version? This bit
> of code seems to be the major difference between the patch and 1.2.12.
>
> if (size == 0)
> /* Mid-air collision?. Somebody must've changed the env. var. */
> return APR_INCOMPLETE;
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/make/resources/patches/apr/misc/win32/env.c?view=markup
>
> This check doesn't exist in 1.2.12.
I made this change on top of the current version of APR used in VM, that
is 1.2.6. If we take version 1.2.12 as is we should make sure that
kernel test j.l.SystemTest.testGetenv works when some environment
variable is defined with an empty value.
--
Gregory
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Gregory Shimansky
<gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 29 марта 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Alexey Varlamov
> >
> > <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2008/3/28, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>:
> > > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> > >
> > > I guess the opposite, there were no specific reasons to upgrade so far.
> >
> > True, but it would be nice to eliminate custom patches, if possible.
> >
> > > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> > >
> > > Looking through APR patches if they're still actual/compatible and
> > > testing, the more the better - should be enough.
> >
> > Is anyone familiar with the current patches? Any specific tests that
> > might be considered regression tests for those patches?
>
> I created a patch for working_vm/make/resources/patches/apr/misc/win32/env.c.
> The problem was with apr_env_get when the requested variable is defined but
> has no value (empty string). APR used to treat it as an undefined variable.
> The test exists in VM acceptance tests but it requires the system to have a
> variable defined in such way (I encountered the bug on a new windows
> installation with no printer, it had PRINTER variable defined as "").
Was this change made on top of 1.2.6 or a different version? This bit
of code seems to be the major difference between the patch and 1.2.12.
if (size == 0)
/* Mid-air collision?. Somebody must've changed the env. var. */
return APR_INCOMPLETE;
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/make/resources/patches/apr/misc/win32/env.c?view=markup
This check doesn't exist in 1.2.12.
>
> --
> Gregory
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>.
On 29 марта 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Alexey Varlamov
>
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/3/28, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>:
> > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> >
> > I guess the opposite, there were no specific reasons to upgrade so far.
>
> True, but it would be nice to eliminate custom patches, if possible.
>
> > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> >
> > Looking through APR patches if they're still actual/compatible and
> > testing, the more the better - should be enough.
>
> Is anyone familiar with the current patches? Any specific tests that
> might be considered regression tests for those patches?
I created a patch for working_vm/make/resources/patches/apr/misc/win32/env.c.
The problem was with apr_env_get when the requested variable is defined but
has no value (empty string). APR used to treat it as an undefined variable.
The test exists in VM acceptance tests but it requires the system to have a
variable defined in such way (I encountered the bug on a new windows
installation with no printer, it had PRINTER variable defined as "").
--
Gregory
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Alexey Varlamov
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/3/28, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>:
>
> > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
>
> I guess the opposite, there were no specific reasons to upgrade so far.
True, but it would be nice to eliminate custom patches, if possible.
>
>
> > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
>
> Looking through APR patches if they're still actual/compatible and
> testing, the more the better - should be enough.
Is anyone familiar with the current patches? Any specific tests that
might be considered regression tests for those patches?
>
>
> > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
>
> Right, AFAIU this is apr-util dependency so to be upgraded as well.
>
> Regards,
> Alexey
>
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2008/3/28, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>:
> Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
I guess the opposite, there were no specific reasons to upgrade so far.
> I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
Looking through APR patches if they're still actual/compatible and
testing, the more the better - should be enough.
> I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
Right, AFAIU this is apr-util dependency so to be upgraded as well.
Regards,
Alexey
>
> -Nathan
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>.
Nathan Beyer said the following on 02.04.2008 5:47:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On 1 April 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> > > I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
>> > > patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
>> > > pass without failure or error.
>> > >
>> > > If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
>> > > and remove the patches tonight.
>> >
>> > Just to make sure, did you define some environment variable with no string
>> > value ("" empty string) before running kernel tests?
>> >
>> >
>> No - i'll give that a try and see what happens.
>> -Nathan
>
> I must be an idiot, but how do you do this? On WinXP, when I "set
> BAD_VAR=", nothing is added. When I set an existing variable, it's
> removed from the environment. Is this something that can be done on
> other versions of Windows?
Hmm indeed. The funny thing I is that I cannot reproduce it myself.
Looks like such variables are not allowed to be set in legal ways. But I
do remember that windows set that PRINTER variable to have no value when
no printer was defined...
Ok, I think we are safe to go with APR 1.2.12. If someone encounters
this bug again we'll know where to look.
>>
>>
>> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
>> > > > x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
>> > > > all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
>> > > > running the tests on Linux x86.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
>> > > > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Nathan
>> >
>> > --
>> > Gregory
>> >
>>
--
Gregory
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 1 April 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > > I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
> > > patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
> > > pass without failure or error.
> > >
> > > If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
> > > and remove the patches tonight.
> >
> > Just to make sure, did you define some environment variable with no string
> > value ("" empty string) before running kernel tests?
> >
> >
> No - i'll give that a try and see what happens.
> -Nathan
I must be an idiot, but how do you do this? On WinXP, when I "set
BAD_VAR=", nothing is added. When I set an existing variable, it's
removed from the environment. Is this something that can be done on
other versions of Windows?
-Nathan
>
>
>
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
> > > > x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
> > > > all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
> > > > running the tests on Linux x86.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > > > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> > > > >
> > > > > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nathan
> >
> > --
> > Gregory
> >
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 1 April 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
> > patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
> > pass without failure or error.
> >
> > If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
> > and remove the patches tonight.
>
> Just to make sure, did you define some environment variable with no string
> value ("" empty string) before running kernel tests?
>
>
No - i'll give that a try and see what happens.
-Nathan
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
> > > x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
> > > all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
> > > running the tests on Linux x86.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
> > > >
> > > > -Nathan
>
> --
> Gregory
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Gregory Shimansky <gs...@apache.org>.
On 1 April 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
> patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
> pass without failure or error.
>
> If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
> and remove the patches tonight.
Just to make sure, did you define some environment variable with no string
value ("" empty string) before running kernel tests?
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
> > x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
> > all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
> > running the tests on Linux x86.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> > >
> > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> > >
> > > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
> > >
> > > -Nathan
--
Gregory
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Alexey Varlamov <al...@gmail.com>.
2008/4/1, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>:
> I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
> patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
> pass without failure or error.
>
> If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
> and remove the patches tonight.
>
> -Nathan
Looks like I'm a bit late, but still - IIRC the win patches were
targeted to fix thread conditional variables impl, which might cause
CPU starvation on contention. This was reproducible on some Eclipse
scenarios - so let's see if we've got new hang issues in CC.
BTW, we already have a new reason to upgrade to next APR version after
it is released: see parallel thread about VC2008 compilation errors.
--
Alexey
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
pass without failure or error.
If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
and remove the patches tonight.
-Nathan
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
> x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
> all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
> running the tests on Linux x86.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> >
> > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> >
> > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
> >
> > -Nathan
> >
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
running the tests on Linux x86.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
>
> I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
>
> I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
>
> -Nathan
>
Re: [drlvm] upgrade apr, apr-util to 1.2.12
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
I applied the apr updates at revision r643691 and r643693; in case
there are major issues.
-Nathan
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
>
> I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
>
> I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
>
> -Nathan
>