harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aleksey Ignatenko" <aleksey.ignate...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][luni] Arrays.sort() incompatibility with RI
Date Wed, 16 May 2007 04:08:42 GMT
>From H-3339 comment:

As the bug is in the tests then it is to be filed on Eclipse and this JIRA
closed with comment about Eclipse bug.
Please, see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=176157 as example
of Harmony related bug.

BR,
Aleksey Ignatenko.

On 5/15/07, Sergey Kuksenko <sergey.kuksenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> As you wrote in the JIRA the reason of failure is incorrect Comparator
> which
> is used in the test.
> The Comparator violates the follwing rule from specification:
> "The implementor must ensure that sgn(compare(x, y)) ==
> -sgn(compare(y, x))for all
> x and y."
> So I thing that It would be more correct to fix a comparator from test.
>
> Some words about bug2bug compatibility. The fact that RI has different
> result on this comparator means nothing, because in case of different
> incorect comparator RI may give a different unpredictable results. So
> should
> we check *all possible set of incorrect comparators* and move exactly in
> same results as done by RI?
> I think that it will mean that we should have completely the same
> implementation of sorting.
>
>
>
> On 5/15/07, Eugene Ostrovsky <eugene.s.ostrovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all.
> >
> > Some of eclipse tests pass on RI but fail on harmony. See
> > *HARMONY-3339<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-3339>
> > * .
> > The tests are incorrect. They pass on RI due to difference in
> > implementation
> > of Arrays.sort() method.
> >
> > Shall we alter our Array.sort() implementation to be consistent with RI
> > ant
> > to make these buggy tests pass?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eugene.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> ---
> Sergey Kuksenko.
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message