[concurrency-interest] a volatile bug?

David Holmes davidcholmes at aapt.net.au
Sun May 20 18:48:31 EDT 2012


My point was that it is very difficult to write tests that trigger different compilation strategies. As it stands unless people play with the compiler strategies via -XX options then these tests will always behave the same way in that regard, so the coverage is not what you might think.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kirk Pepperdine [mailto:kirk at kodewerk.com]
> Sent: Monday, 21 May 2012 3:35 AM
> To: Boehm, Hans
> Cc: dholmes at ieee.org; Doug Lea; viktor ?lang;
> concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] a volatile bug?
> 
> 
> I've been rooting around at the hardware level and the best 
> testing idea I've been able to come up with is to treat this 
> stuff as a "trait". Test coverage for this stuff is utterly 
> impossible. I think the best one can do is as you suggested, 
> write the tests, make them statistical in nature and then make it 
> easily available so that the community can run the test them 
> selves. I see this tactic as necessary evil in the future of testing.
> 
> Regards,
> Kirk
> 
> On 2012-05-20, at 7:21 PM, Boehm, Hans wrote:
> 
> > Good point.  But especially in this area, I still think a 
> widely available test suite would help a lot.  You might miss the 
> problem in your test environment, but if you get everyone who has 
> a threads-related problem and suspects their compiler to run the 
> suite in their environment, I'd guess you would get reasonable coverage.
> > 
> > Hans
> > 
> > 
> >> From: David Holmes
> >> 
> >> It is also very difficult to run tests in a way that tests all 
> possible generated
> >> code from the JITs. The OSR form can be different from the 
> "normal" form
> >> which can be different from a forced compilation via -Xcomp.
> >> 
> >> But we definitely need better coverage here.
> >> 
> >> David
> >> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu
> >>> [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Doug
> >>> Lea
> >>> Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2012 11:25 PM
> >>> To: viktor ?lang
> >>> Cc: concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> >>> Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] a volatile bug?
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 05/19/12 09:16, √iktor Ҡlang wrote:
> >>>> Wait, what, there's no JMM tests?
> >>> 
> >>> There is not, to my knowledge, a "hotspot JMM Test suite"
> >>> (which is out of my scope).  But there are (three forms of) j.u.c test
> >>> suites, that together test most JMM requirements.
> >>> But there ought to be a separate one to mop up coverage holes.
> >>> 
> >>> -Doug
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> >>> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> >>> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> >> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> >> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Concurrency-interest mailing list
> > Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> > http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> 
> 




More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list