From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23693 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2006 10:17:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 23676 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2006 10:17:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:17:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9RAHgeT022173 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:17:43 -0400 Received: from zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (vpn-14-137.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.137]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9RAHdOZ007684; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:17:40 -0400 Received: from littlepinkcloud.COM (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zebedee.littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k9RAHbEY020141; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:17:38 +0100 Received: (from aph@localhost) by littlepinkcloud.COM (8.13.6/8.13.5/Submit) id k9RAHbD6020138; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:17:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17729.56513.133225.251768@zebedee.pink> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:17:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: Keith Seitz Cc: Java Patch List Subject: Re: [RFC/JVMTI] GetMethodDeclaringClass In-Reply-To: <45414D77.1020109@redhat.com> References: <45351C48.5070205@redhat.com> <17717.7538.291407.210562@zebedee.pink> <17717.8425.50456.767598@zebedee.pink> <45352422.9050906@redhat.com> <17717.9875.943502.570625@zebedee.pink> <4536B2D8.3050908@redhat.com> <17719.13768.455632.416204@zebedee.pink> <453D2B08.20400@redhat.com> <17725.46196.503583.636515@zebedee.pink> <45414D77.1020109@redhat.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q4/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 Keith Seitz writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > [It would be really appreciated if someone with access to > > > ppc64-linux or somesuch could double-check for a failure in the > > > stack tracing tests in lang.exp.] > > > > I suggest you ask Andrew Overholt for access to his ppc64 box. > > Okay, I finally found a machine to test this on. I tried three test runs: > > 1) Virgin SVN HEAD > 2) #1 + my patch > 3) #2 - the "filter out interpreted classes" (to make sure that the bug > was tested) > > #1 & #2 were the same. #3 showed backtrace problems. So I guess we can > conclude that my patch does not cause any regressions. OK, excellent. Please commit. Andrew.