[kaffe] Re: mipsel/jit3 regression test results
Kevin D. Kissell
kevink at mips.com
Wed Oct 13 08:16:59 PDT 2004
As a MIPS guy who beat his head against the wall of the broken JIT3
a couple of years ago, I'm really interested in this, and I'm really concerned
that I never saw the original message from Makolaj to which the message
below is a reply, though I did see Timothy's message explaining how to
manually run the tests. We have a spam filter in place, but it doesn't delete
messages, only tags them as spam, so that's not the cause. Has anyone else
noticed a problem with the kaffe.org mail relay lately?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Stack" <stack at cs.utah.edu>
To: "Mikolaj Habryn" <dichro at rcpt.to>
Cc: "Timothy Stack" <stack at cs.utah.edu>; <kaffe at kaffe.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 16:55
Subject: [kaffe] Re: mipsel/jit3 regression test results
> > On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 11:11, Timothy Stack wrote:
> > > To run it manually, you need to do something like the following in
> > > sh/bash:
> > [..snip..]
> > Magic, thanks!
> > Results are:
> > Bombed with Illegal Instruction: ControlFlowMethods, ObjectFields,
> > PrimitiveArrays, StaticFields, StaticMethodCall, TypeConversion
> > Passed: ConstMathMethods, ConstMethods, ParameterizedBitwiseMethods,
> > ParameterizedLogicalMethods
> > Aborted: ParameterizedMathMethods, ParameterizedMethods
> > ...and I got bored waiting for MethodOptimizations to complete.
> So, first, I guess I never explained what the purpose of these are...
> These tests are basically the baby steps used to test a primordial jitter.
> Just running something like 'Hello, World!' in java requires almost a
> fully working jitter, so, these tests are for individual operations like
> returning constant values, doing simple math, etc...
> With that out of the way, the aborted tests are probably due to floating
> point use, bad trampolines, and/or a bad sysdep_callmethod. The illegal
> instructions are probably bad code or its generating instructions that
> aren't supported on your processor. Unfortunately, I don't have a sense
> why MethodOptimizations would loop...
> If you want to start fixing things, you'll want to try to get xdebugging
> working (see FAQ.xdebugging) so you can use gdb to disassemble/set
> breakpoints on the generated code.
> > That was without libffi. With libffi, the differences were:
> > ConstMethods failed instead of passed.
> > ParameterizedMethods failed instead of aborted.
> > StaticMethodCall crashed the box :)
> Um, well, that isn't good... ;) You might as well avoid libffi for now
> and try to fix it after the rest of the jitter is working.
> > m.
> good luck!
> tim stack
> kaffe mailing list
> kaffe at kaffe.org
More information about the kaffe