On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 15:08:39 GMT, Ethan McCue <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Shaojin Wen has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous 
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences 
>> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains three 
>> new commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Simplify test: use String.repeat() instead of byte array allocation
>>    
>>    Use "\u00ff".repeat(length) to create the large LATIN1 string,
>>    which is more concise and avoids manual byte array allocation.
>>    
>>    Co-Authored-By: rgiulietti
>>  - Improve test: use encodedLength() directly and increase memory
>>    
>>    - Use String.encodedLength(UTF_8) instead of getBytes(UTF_8) to
>>      directly test encodedLengthUTF8() without allocating a 2GB+
>>      output buffer, making the test more reliable and memory-efficient
>>    - Add pure ASCII test case for better coverage
>>    - Increase heap from 3g to 5g to prevent silent test skip
>>    - Remove placeholder bug ID (pending JBS issue)
>>    - Null out bigArray before encodedLength() call to allow GC
>>  - Fix integer overflow in String.encodedLengthUTF8 LATIN1 path
>>    
>>    The encodedLengthUTF8() method uses an int accumulator (dp) for the
>>    LATIN1 code path, while the UTF16 path (encodedLengthUTF8_UTF16)
>>    correctly uses a long accumulator with an overflow check. When a
>>    LATIN1 string contains more than Integer.MAX_VALUE/2 non-ASCII bytes,
>>    the int dp overflows, potentially causing NegativeArraySizeException
>>    in downstream buffer allocation.
>>    
>>    Fix: change dp from int to long and add the same overflow check used
>>    in the UTF16 path.
>
> @wenshao can you provide a recipe for Bolognese?

@bowbahdoe Haha, I appreciate the humor! But let's keep the discussion focused 
on the PR :)

By the way, just to clarify - I'm wenshao (the PR author), and I'm using Claude 
Code to help draft this response.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30189#issuecomment-4083464339

Reply via email to