DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Shai Erera
I don't know if this is new, but I've hit this today (on the latest trunk):

junit-sequential:
    [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest
    [junit] Testcase: test(org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest):        FAILED
    [junit] fox is not equal to foo
    [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: fox is not equal to foo
    [junit]     at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:958)
    [junit]     at org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:896)
    [junit]     at org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest.test(DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest.java:70)
    [junit]
    [junit]
    [junit] Testcase: org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest:      FAILED
    [junit] ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
    [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
    [junit]     at org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.endTrackingSearchers(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:128)
    [junit]     at org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.deleteCore(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:302)
    [junit]     at org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.afterClassSolrTestCase(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:79)
    [junit]
    [junit]
    [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 2.347 sec
    [junit]
    [junit] ------------- Standard Output ---------------
    [junit] NOTE: reproduce with: ant test -Dtestcase=DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest -Dtestmethod=test -Dtests.seed=-4847502482604100745:8515640956061503432 -Dtests.codec=randomPerField
    [junit] NOTE: test params are: codec=RandomCodecProvider: {range_facet_si=MockSep, intDefault=Standard, range_facet_l=Standard, range_facet_sl=Standard, teststop=MockSep, timestamp=Pulsing(freqCutoff=18), multiDefault=Pulsing(freqCutoff=18), id=Standard}, locale=sk_SK_EURO, timezone=America/Argentina/La_Rioja
    [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
    [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
    [junit] 28.11.2010 6:39:36 org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4 endTrackingSearchers
    [junit] SEVERE: ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
    [junit] NOTE: all tests run in this JVM:
    [junit] [DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest]
    [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
    [junit] Test org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest FAILED

To reproduce:

ant test -Dtestcase=DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest -Dtestmethod=test -Dtests.seed=-4847502482604100745:8515640956061503432 -Dtests.codec=randomPerField

Shai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Robert Muir
Shai, thanks for reporting this.

Unfortunately when i run with the same seed i get a different
per-field codec map.
This means I can't reproduce your failure.
So, we need to make sure the "randomPerField" gives the same codecs
for the same field.
I'll play a bit and see if i can somehow fix this first, then loop and
try to reproduce your fail.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't know if this is new, but I've hit this today (on the latest trunk):
>
> junit-sequential:
>     [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest
>     [junit] Testcase:
> test(org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest):        FAILED
>     [junit] fox is not equal to foo
>     [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: fox is not equal to foo
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:958)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:896)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest.test(DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest.java:70)
>     [junit]
>     [junit]
>     [junit] Testcase:
> org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest:      FAILED
>     [junit] ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
>     [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher
> opens=2 closes=1
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.endTrackingSearchers(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:128)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.deleteCore(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:302)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.afterClassSolrTestCase(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:79)
>     [junit]
>     [junit]
>     [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 2.347 sec
>     [junit]
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Output ---------------
>     [junit] NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
> -Dtestcase=DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest -Dtestmethod=test
> -Dtests.seed=-4847502482604100745:8515640956061503432
> -Dtests.codec=randomPerField
>     [junit] NOTE: test params are: codec=RandomCodecProvider:
> {range_facet_si=MockSep, intDefault=Standard, range_facet_l=Standard,
> range_facet_sl=Standard, teststop=MockSep, timestamp=Pulsing(freqCutoff=18),
> multiDefault=Pulsing(freqCutoff=18), id=Standard}, locale=sk_SK_EURO,
> timezone=America/Argentina/La_Rioja
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
>     [junit] 28.11.2010 6:39:36 org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4
> endTrackingSearchers
>     [junit] SEVERE: ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
>     [junit] NOTE: all tests run in this JVM:
>     [junit] [DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest]
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>     [junit] Test org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest FAILED
>
> To reproduce:
>
> ant test -Dtestcase=DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest -Dtestmethod=test
> -Dtests.seed=-4847502482604100745:8515640956061503432
> -Dtests.codec=randomPerField
>
> Shai
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Shai Erera
Hmm .. I previously ran the test w/ IBM's JDK (6) and after seeing your mail, I tried w/ Oracle's (6) -- to my surprise the latter succeeds.

What happens in the test that the JDK version can affect?

Shai

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
Shai, thanks for reporting this.

Unfortunately when i run with the same seed i get a different
per-field codec map.
This means I can't reproduce your failure.
So, we need to make sure the "randomPerField" gives the same codecs
for the same field.
I'll play a bit and see if i can somehow fix this first, then loop and
try to reproduce your fail.

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know if this is new, but I've hit this today (on the latest trunk):
>
> junit-sequential:
>     [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest
>     [junit] Testcase:
> test(org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest):        FAILED
>     [junit] fox is not equal to foo
>     [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: fox is not equal to foo
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:958)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.lucene.util.LuceneTestCase$LuceneTestCaseRunner.runChild(LuceneTestCase.java:896)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest.test(DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest.java:70)
>     [junit]
>     [junit]
>     [junit] Testcase:
> org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest:      FAILED
>     [junit] ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
>     [junit] junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher
> opens=2 closes=1
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.endTrackingSearchers(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:128)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.deleteCore(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:302)
>     [junit]     at
> org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4.afterClassSolrTestCase(SolrTestCaseJ4.java:79)
>     [junit]
>     [junit]
>     [junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 2.347 sec
>     [junit]
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Output ---------------
>     [junit] NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
> -Dtestcase=DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest -Dtestmethod=test
> -Dtests.seed=-4847502482604100745:8515640956061503432
> -Dtests.codec=randomPerField
>     [junit] NOTE: test params are: codec=RandomCodecProvider:
> {range_facet_si=MockSep, intDefault=Standard, range_facet_l=Standard,
> range_facet_sl=Standard, teststop=MockSep, timestamp=Pulsing(freqCutoff=18),
> multiDefault=Pulsing(freqCutoff=18), id=Standard}, locale=sk_SK_EURO,
> timezone=America/Argentina/La_Rioja
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>     [junit] ------------- Standard Error -----------------
>     [junit] 28.11.2010 6:39:36 org.apache.solr.SolrTestCaseJ4
> endTrackingSearchers
>     [junit] SEVERE: ERROR: SolrIndexSearcher opens=2 closes=1
>     [junit] NOTE: all tests run in this JVM:
>     [junit] [DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest]
>     [junit] ------------- ---------------- ---------------
>     [junit] Test org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest FAILED
>
> To reproduce:
>
> ant test -Dtestcase=DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest -Dtestmethod=test
> -Dtests.seed=-4847502482604100745:8515640956061503432
> -Dtests.codec=randomPerField
>
> Shai
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Robert Muir
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hmm .. I previously ran the test w/ IBM's JDK (6) and after seeing your
> mail, I tried w/ Oracle's (6) -- to my surprise the latter succeeds.
>
> What happens in the test that the JDK version can affect?
>

After testing, It seems to be an issue only with solr tests.

When solr indexes, it seems the order of the fields being indexed is
not well-defined. Perhaps they are using some iterator with undefined
order to iterate over the fields.

I didnt mess with this, instead i changed RandomCodecProvider to be
insensitive to the order of fields being added.
In other words, say you have "fieldA" and "fieldB".
If RandomCodecProvider wants to assign "Pulsing" to fieldA, and
"Standard" to fieldB, this will always happen, regardless of whether
you add fieldA before fieldB, or vice versa.

Now i get the same codec mapping for solr tests with the same seed,
across different jvms...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Robert Muir
Shai, now that I think the test reproducibility issue is resolved, i
need to pressure this test to reproduce your problem.
Can you tell me the IBM JDK version / OS version you used (I will use
IBM JDK, just in case its specific to that one)?

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hmm .. I previously ran the test w/ IBM's JDK (6) and after seeing your
>> mail, I tried w/ Oracle's (6) -- to my surprise the latter succeeds.
>>
>> What happens in the test that the JDK version can affect?
>>
>
> After testing, It seems to be an issue only with solr tests.
>
> When solr indexes, it seems the order of the fields being indexed is
> not well-defined. Perhaps they are using some iterator with undefined
> order to iterate over the fields.
>
> I didnt mess with this, instead i changed RandomCodecProvider to be
> insensitive to the order of fields being added.
> In other words, say you have "fieldA" and "fieldB".
> If RandomCodecProvider wants to assign "Pulsing" to fieldA, and
> "Standard" to fieldB, this will always happen, regardless of whether
> you add fieldA before fieldB, or vice versa.
>
> Now i get the same codec mapping for solr tests with the same seed,
> across different jvms...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Shai Erera
OS: Windows 7 Pro

IBM's:
java version "1.6.0"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pwa6460sr8fp1-20100624_01(SR8 FP1))
IBM J9 VM (build 2.4, JRE 1.6.0 IBM J9 2.4 Windows 7 amd64-64 jvmwa6460sr8ifx-20100609_59383 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled)
J9VM - 20100609_059383
JIT  - r9_20100401_15339ifx2
GC   - 20100308_AA)
JCL  - 20100624_01

Oracle's:
java version "1.6.0_21"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_21-b07)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 17.0-b17, mixed mode, sharing)

Shai

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
Shai, now that I think the test reproducibility issue is resolved, i
need to pressure this test to reproduce your problem.
Can you tell me the IBM JDK version / OS version you used (I will use
IBM JDK, just in case its specific to that one)?

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hmm .. I previously ran the test w/ IBM's JDK (6) and after seeing your
>> mail, I tried w/ Oracle's (6) -- to my surprise the latter succeeds.
>>
>> What happens in the test that the JDK version can affect?
>>
>
> After testing, It seems to be an issue only with solr tests.
>
> When solr indexes, it seems the order of the fields being indexed is
> not well-defined. Perhaps they are using some iterator with undefined
> order to iterate over the fields.
>
> I didnt mess with this, instead i changed RandomCodecProvider to be
> insensitive to the order of fields being added.
> In other words, say you have "fieldA" and "fieldB".
> If RandomCodecProvider wants to assign "Pulsing" to fieldA, and
> "Standard" to fieldB, this will always happen, regardless of whether
> you add fieldA before fieldB, or vice versa.
>
> Now i get the same codec mapping for solr tests with the same seed,
> across different jvms...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Robert Muir
Thanks Shai!

I put up a patch on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2257 if
you are able to test.

The problem is the spell checking comparators don't have a tertiary
comparison (tie-break).
So the results are very undefined, depends on which order you add
documents to your index (for the index-based case), the order of your
text file (the plain text case), etc etc.

Somehow we need to setup hudson to use alternative runtimes (IBM, BEA,
Harmony, etc) to detect problems like this!

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> OS: Windows 7 Pro
>
> IBM's:
> java version "1.6.0"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pwa6460sr8fp1-20100624_01(SR8 FP1))
> IBM J9 VM (build 2.4, JRE 1.6.0 IBM J9 2.4 Windows 7 amd64-64
> jvmwa6460sr8ifx-20100609_59383 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled)
> J9VM - 20100609_059383
> JIT  - r9_20100401_15339ifx2
> GC   - 20100308_AA)
> JCL  - 20100624_01
>
> Oracle's:
> java version "1.6.0_21"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_21-b07)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 17.0-b17, mixed mode, sharing)
>
> Shai
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Shai, now that I think the test reproducibility issue is resolved, i
>> need to pressure this test to reproduce your problem.
>> Can you tell me the IBM JDK version / OS version you used (I will use
>> IBM JDK, just in case its specific to that one)?
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> Hmm .. I previously ran the test w/ IBM's JDK (6) and after seeing your
>> >> mail, I tried w/ Oracle's (6) -- to my surprise the latter succeeds.
>> >>
>> >> What happens in the test that the JDK version can affect?
>> >>
>> >
>> > After testing, It seems to be an issue only with solr tests.
>> >
>> > When solr indexes, it seems the order of the fields being indexed is
>> > not well-defined. Perhaps they are using some iterator with undefined
>> > order to iterate over the fields.
>> >
>> > I didnt mess with this, instead i changed RandomCodecProvider to be
>> > insensitive to the order of fields being added.
>> > In other words, say you have "fieldA" and "fieldB".
>> > If RandomCodecProvider wants to assign "Pulsing" to fieldA, and
>> > "Standard" to fieldB, this will always happen, regardless of whether
>> > you add fieldA before fieldB, or vice versa.
>> >
>> > Now i get the same codec mapping for solr tests with the same seed,
>> > across different jvms...
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Uwe Schindler
Hudson is freebsd-jvms-only :(

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 2:49 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure
>
> Thanks Shai!
>
> I put up a patch on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2257 if you are
> able to test.
>
> The problem is the spell checking comparators don't have a tertiary
> comparison (tie-break).
> So the results are very undefined, depends on which order you add documents
> to your index (for the index-based case), the order of your text file (the plain
> text case), etc etc.
>
> Somehow we need to setup hudson to use alternative runtimes (IBM, BEA,
> Harmony, etc) to detect problems like this!
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > OS: Windows 7 Pro
> >
> > IBM's:
> > java version "1.6.0"
> > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build pwa6460sr8fp1-20100624_01(SR8
> > FP1)) IBM J9 VM (build 2.4, JRE 1.6.0 IBM J9 2.4 Windows 7 amd64-64
> > jvmwa6460sr8ifx-20100609_59383 (JIT enabled, AOT enabled) J9VM -
> > 20100609_059383 JIT  - r9_20100401_15339ifx2 GC   - 20100308_AA) JCL
> > - 20100624_01
> >
> > Oracle's:
> > java version "1.6.0_21"
> > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_21-b07) Java HotSpot(TM)
> > Client VM (build 17.0-b17, mixed mode, sharing)
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Shai, now that I think the test reproducibility issue is resolved, i
> >> need to pressure this test to reproduce your problem.
> >> Can you tell me the IBM JDK version / OS version you used (I will use
> >> IBM JDK, just in case its specific to that one)?
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >> Hmm .. I previously ran the test w/ IBM's JDK (6) and after seeing
> >> >> your mail, I tried w/ Oracle's (6) -- to my surprise the latter succeeds.
> >> >>
> >> >> What happens in the test that the JDK version can affect?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > After testing, It seems to be an issue only with solr tests.
> >> >
> >> > When solr indexes, it seems the order of the fields being indexed
> >> > is not well-defined. Perhaps they are using some iterator with
> >> > undefined order to iterate over the fields.
> >> >
> >> > I didnt mess with this, instead i changed RandomCodecProvider to be
> >> > insensitive to the order of fields being added.
> >> > In other words, say you have "fieldA" and "fieldB".
> >> > If RandomCodecProvider wants to assign "Pulsing" to fieldA, and
> >> > "Standard" to fieldB, this will always happen, regardless of
> >> > whether you add fieldA before fieldB, or vice versa.
> >> >
> >> > Now i get the same codec mapping for solr tests with the same seed,
> >> > across different jvms...
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] For
> >> additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] For additional
> commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Robert Muir
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hudson is freebsd-jvms-only :(
>

Right, but in the case of IBM and JRockit, theoretically the IBM JDK
should work under linux emulation (i know, you might need linprocfs,
but we still need this fixed anyway, right?)

And I think harmony might actually compile and work with freebsd
without using a linux binary, I'm not sure though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DirectSolrSpellCheckerTest failure

Shai Erera
I tried the patch and the test now passes. Thanks !

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hudson is freebsd-jvms-only :(
>

Right, but in the case of IBM and JRockit, theoretically the IBM JDK
should work under linux emulation (i know, you might need linprocfs,
but we still need this fixed anyway, right?)

And I think harmony might actually compile and work with freebsd
without using a linux binary, I'm not sure though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]