Hi Brian,
This is really highly unlikely (1 in 2^800). In fact, it was not
possible for this particular test to produce zero BigInteger. That's
because the test uses a pseudo-random generator with deterministic
algorithm and it uses a constant seed to initialize it before generating
the next 2000 BigInteger random numbers with magnitude 0 ... 2^800 - 1:
33 Random rnd = new Random(1234);
34
35 for (int i=0; i<2000; i++) {
36 BigInteger m = new BigInteger(800, rnd);
So if this test didn't fail with zero BigInteger when it is was run for
the 1st time, then it can't fail in any other run, because the random
numbers produced are the same in any run.
But for the sake of correctness, let's pretend that the numbers are
really random. Why pretend? Why not make them really random? By using
SecureRandom instead with really random seed?
Is it important for such test to be deterministic? Perhaps, so it can be
re-executed with repeatable results in case it fails.
So the middle ground would be to make the test undeterministic, but
repeatable. By calculating a really random seed (using SecureRandom) and
use that seed in a known deterministic pseudo-random generator
(java.util.Random) while printing the used seed to the output log before
executing the the test logic. In case the test fails, it can be repeated
by providing the seed from the log of the failed execution...
Just thinking loud. Not suggesting you really do anything like that to
this test...
Regards, Peter
On 12/21/18 1:36 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215759
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8215759/webrev.00/
Although highly unlikely, the modulus parameter of modPow() can be zero which
would provoke an ArithmeticException.
Unsure whether I need this bug ID in the @bug list.
Thanks,
Brian
