On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:08:02 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Update: confirmed that the new test fails without the fix. >> >> Thanks for verifying the test checks the fix; I'll let others who have >> worked more directly on the random code review the actual fix. > >> @jddarcy Added a regression test, and currently working on adjusting it (see >> https://github.com/Pr0methean/jdk/actions/runs/7984444127) to ensure we have >> a case that fails without the fix, passes with the fix, and is practical to >> run within the usual unit-test timeouts. > > I gave this a try locally. It doesn't fail for me without the source code > changes proposed in this PR. I see the following output from the test without > the source code changes: > > > got 1.0 for max 1.0 > got 2.0 for max 2.0 > got 3.0 for max 3.0 > got 4.0 for max 4.0 > got 5.0 for max 5.0 > got 6.0 for max 6.0 > got 7.0 for max 7.0 > got 11.353912041222094 for max 8.0 > got 11.353912041222094 for max 9.0 > > > With the proposed changes in this PR, the test continues to pass and I see > this output: > > > got 7.569274694148063 for max 1.0 > got 7.569274694148063 for max 2.0 > got 7.569274694148063 for max 3.0 > got 7.569274694148063 for max 4.0 > got 7.569274694148063 for max 5.0 > got 7.569274694148063 for max 6.0 > got 7.569274694148063 for max 7.0 > got 11.353912041222094 for max 8.0 > got 11.353912041222094 for max 9.0 @jaikiran Thanks for these results; I'll take another look at the test over the weekend. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17703#issuecomment-2278574602
