sablevm-developer

[Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[Etienne G. <gag...@uq...>]

Hi folks,

So, is there anything holding this release?  Hmmm...  oh yes!...  We 
lack an appropriate NEWS release.  I have proven myself not to be very 
good at doing a satisfying job on this, according to some people, so, 
please send your proposal ASAP. :-)

Thanks in advanced,

Etienne

-- 
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.             http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[David <db...@cs...>]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:04:47AM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Hi folks,
>=20
> So, is there anything holding this release?  Hmmm...  oh yes!...  We=20
> lack an appropriate NEWS release.  I have proven myself not to be very=20
> good at doing a satisfying job on this, according to some people, so,=20
> please send your proposal ASAP. :-)
>=20

Hi,

SableVM now should build out-of-box on Darwin(OS X)/ppc but not with
signals for exception, it segfaults.  If you want to disable it by
default, the host string is: powerpc-apple-darwin* and you enable them
for powerpc-*.  So I guess you need: powerpc-*-gnu.

On FreeBSD, there are still a few issues to solve.  Basically, instead
of linking libpthread, we have to pass the -pthread option to gcc so it
links -lc_r (reentrant libc + pthread function) instead of libc.  Even
with that, there were a few issues.

It may take some time to fix these as I have to update several autoconf
, subversion etc. on these system.  So I think we should still go ahead
with the release.


David

---

David B=E9langer
Graduate Student
School of Computer Science
McGill University
Office: MC226

Web page:   http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/
Public key: http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/public_key.txt

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[Grzegorz B. P. <ga...@de...>]

On (11/05/04 10:04), Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> So, is there anything holding this release?  Hmmm...  oh yes!...  We 
> lack an appropriate NEWS release.  I have proven myself not to be very 
> good at doing a satisfying job on this, according to some people, so, 
> please send your proposal ASAP. :-)

Please take a look at what I've just copied from my sandbox to

svn cat \
  svn://svn.sablevm.org/sablevm/branches/staging/doc/release_mail.txt

Improvements are welcome.



Other than this - I also built sablevm and I keep getting two kinds of
warnings which I don't like:


1. At autogen.sh time:

automake: src/libsablevm/Makefile.am: not supported: source file
`inlinability/inlined_alpha.h' is in subdirectory

for each src/lib/sablevm/inlinablity/inlined_*.h file. But I think
this is because of older autotools on my machine. I removed
src/libsablevm/inlinabiliyt/Makefile and moved the logic back to
src/libsablevm/Makefile using glue and I had *no* warnings like that.
It compiles well though, so I am just mentioning this for completness.


2. At compile time I am getting a few dozens of such warnings:

In file included from libsablevm.c:113:
java_io_VMObjectStreamClass.c:24: warning: static declaration for
`Java_java_io_VMObjectStreamClass_hasClassInitializer' follows
non-static

Am I the only one seeing them?  That'd be a surprise.
$  gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (Debian 20040429)

Current Debian unstable.

HTH

				GBP

-- 
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <ga...@de...>
Debian GNU/Linux      http://www.debian.org
SableVM - LGPLed JVM  http://www.sablevm.org
Why SableVM ?!?       http://devel.sablevm.org/wiki/WhySableVM

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[Chris P. <chr...@ma...>]

Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On (11/05/04 10:04), Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> 
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>So, is there anything holding this release?  Hmmm...  oh yes!...  We 
>>lack an appropriate NEWS release.  I have proven myself not to be very 
>>good at doing a satisfying job on this, according to some people, so, 
>>please send your proposal ASAP. :-)
> 
> 
> Please take a look at what I've just copied from my sandbox to
> 
> svn cat \
>   svn://svn.sablevm.org/sablevm/branches/staging/doc/release_mail.txt
> 
> Improvements are welcome.

The following sentence is redundant, otherwise it looks fine.

    So, in general, the "staging" code is very robust.

At some point soonish (either before the end of the summer or before 
1.2.0) I plan on getting some regression testing stuff into staging (it 
will require the user to download benchmarks separately).

Cheers,
Chris

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[Grzegorz B. P. <ga...@de...>]

On (11/05/04 23:00), Chris Pickett wrote:
> The following sentence is redundant, otherwise it looks fine.
> 
>    So, in general, the "staging" code is very robust.

Hmm... it surely is a repetition, though we might want to keep it to
emphasize that the code IS very usable.  This is something, I think,
that really is different in SableVM development model.  And I also
think that we *want* as many people as possible to use 'staging'.

Personally, I'd keep it.

> At some point soonish (either before the end of the summer or before 
> 1.2.0) I plan on getting some regression testing stuff into staging (it 
> will require the user to download benchmarks separately).

Yeah, I am going to set up some UML (User Mode Linux) env. on our new
server so that we could:
a) securely build real, 'dist' tar archives - current staging snapshots
   are, as David noticed, simply tar.gzs of tree checked out from
   subversion,
b) run nightly any tests we might think of, I hope on more than one
   architecture; UML might be preventing us from getting reliable
   *performance* results though, but all the rest should work just
   fine.

So when you have some regression testing suite it will surely be put
into use.  I imagine we'd want to have there things like:
a) SPEC bencharks
b) BTF
c) Mauve
d) Ashes (are they usable currently?)
e) ...
and we'd have "alarm" emails sent to the ML if nightly testing shows
any anomalies in the output on any architecture.  Nice, ain't it?

I know what you think...  and no, I am not just brainstorming :-)
Though these things surely won't be operational tomorrow.

Cheers,

					GBP

-- 
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <ga...@de...>
Debian GNU/Linux      http://www.debian.org
SableVM - LGPLed JVM  http://www.sablevm.org
Why SableVM ?!?       http://devel.sablevm.org/wiki/WhySableVM

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[David <db...@cs...>]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:27:46PM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> On (11/05/04 10:04), Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >=20
> > So, is there anything holding this release?  Hmmm...  oh yes!...  We=20
> > lack an appropriate NEWS release.  I have proven myself not to be ver=
y=20
> > good at doing a satisfying job on this, according to some people, so,=
=20
> > please send your proposal ASAP. :-)
>=20
> Please take a look at what I've just copied from my sandbox to
>=20
> svn cat \
>   svn://svn.sablevm.org/sablevm/branches/staging/doc/release_mail.txt
>=20
> Improvements are welcome.
>=20
>=20

Looks good!  Well presented.

You may want to add that we are now using the (new) VMProcess/Process
from CP instead of our own implementation.  CP provides a complete
implementation whereas our implementation was providing basic
functionality.

David

---

David B=E9langer
Graduate Student
School of Computer Science
McGill University
Office: MC226

Web page:   http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/
Public key: http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/public_key.txt

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[Grzegorz B. P. <ga...@de...>]

On (11/05/04 23:09), David B?langer wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:27:46PM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > Please take a look at what I've just copied from my sandbox to
> > 
> > svn cat \
> >   svn://svn.sablevm.org/sablevm/branches/staging/doc/release_mail.txt
> > 
> > Improvements are welcome.
> 
> Looks good!  Well presented.

Agreed.  Etienne's hand is visible ;-)

> You may want to add that we are now using the (new) VMProcess/Process
> from CP instead of our own implementation.  CP provides a complete
> implementation whereas our implementation was providing basic
> functionality.

Ok, added.

On (11/05/04 10:04), Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> So, is there anything holding this release? 

Looks like we have the announcement ready to be send out, the "const"
problems have been ironed out, I have also just resurrected NEWS file
and put there news from the announcement.

I think that for next releases we should have ./doc/release_mail.txt
w/o any NEWS, if possible, even w/o version number and put the news
where they belong, that is - to the NEWS file.  These two sources
should be simply combined to procude announcement mail.  I guess that
this is what you (Etienne) wanted originally.

Now I am going to sit back and watch 1.1.4 releasing...

				Grzegorz B. Prokopski

-- 
Grzegorz B. Prokopski <ga...@de...>
Debian GNU/Linux      http://www.debian.org
SableVM - LGPLed JVM  http://www.sablevm.org
Why SableVM ?!?       http://devel.sablevm.org/wiki/WhySableVM

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[David <db...@cs...>]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:27:46PM -0400, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>=20
> 2. At compile time I am getting a few dozens of such warnings:
>=20
> In file included from libsablevm.c:113:
> java_io_VMObjectStreamClass.c:24: warning: static declaration for
> `Java_java_io_VMObjectStreamClass_hasClassInitializer' follows
> non-static
>=20
> Am I the only one seeing them?  That'd be a surprise.
> $  gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (Debian 20040429)
>=20
> Current Debian unstable.
>=20

No, same thing here on Gentoo.

I suspect these are due to recent changes of adding the static modifier
to the function definition (in java_*.c).  However their declaration in
the java_*.h do not have it.

The java_*.h are automatically generated... so we need to automatically
add it to the java_*.h when they get regenerated.

I guess we would need some script to do that.

It may be a good idea to have a "make jni_headers" to regenerate them
and make sure the "static" is added.  They don't get changed often but
it would help.

David

---

David B=E9langer
Graduate Student
School of Computer Science
McGill University
Office: MC226

Web page:   http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/
Public key: http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/public_key.txt

Re: [Sablevm-developer] Are we ready for 1.1.4?

[David <db...@cs...>]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 10:04:47AM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Hi folks,
>=20
> So, is there anything holding this release?  Hmmm...  oh yes!...  We=20
> lack an appropriate NEWS release.  I have proven myself not to be very=20
> good at doing a satisfying job on this, according to some people, so,=20
> please send your proposal ASAP. :-)
>=20

yes...

I just notice that I get:

checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes
./configure: line 19644: test: too many arguments
checking for ffi_prep_cif in -lffi... yes
checking for lt_dlinit in -lltdl... yes

I get this on Gentoo/ppc.  Okay on Debian/x86.  Anyone else have this?=20

I looked into ./configure and it seems to be occuring in macro generated
code... for libtool I think.


BTW, about arch, I will ci soon:
- changes to build on FreeBSD out-of-the-box
- signals enable on FreeBSD and Linux/ppc, disabled explicitly on
  Darwin/ppc

Also, Solaris/sparc works for exceptions.  If someone knows the $host
string let me know otherwise, will check tomorrow.


David

---

David B=E9langer
Graduate Student
School of Computer Science
McGill University
Office: MC226

Web page:   http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/
Public key: http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dbelan2/public_key.txt