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 10:05:19 GMT
The only fix for all related issues is to have the same implementation of
such functionality as RI, as you understand it is unreachable goal unless
you use RI classlib. So therefore I would say the right solution is to fix
tests.

Aleksey.


On 5/16/07, Sergey Kuksenko <sergey.kuksenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As we discussed the source of the errror is incorrect comparator.
> However, I can suggest a patch to Arrays which makes Arrays.sort()
> slightly
> close to RI.
> With the patch sorting algorithm is not changed, but ArraysSortTest.javais
> passed as on RI.
> The patch is attached to the issue.
>
> On 5/16/07, Aleksey Ignatenko <aleksey.ignatenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> ---
> Sergey Kuksenko.
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division.
>

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