I still think that this is bogus.... What if SOE machinery is broken?
We need to make this a predictable test. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: gshimansky Date: Wed Nov 15 14:38:55 2006 New Revision: 475473 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=475473 Log: Allow the test to pass even when no SOE happens in max_depth recursions Modified: incubator/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/vm/tests/smoke/StackTest.java Modified: incubator/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/vm/tests/smoke/StackTest.java URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/vm/tests/smoke/StackTest.java?view=diff&rev=475473&r1=475472&r2=475473 ============================================================================== --- incubator/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/vm/tests/smoke/StackTest.java (original) +++ incubator/harmony/enhanced/drlvm/trunk/vm/tests/smoke/StackTest.java Wed Nov 15 14:38:55 2006 @@ -29,11 +29,10 @@ public static void main(String[] args) { try { func(); - System.out.println("FAIL"); } catch (StackOverflowError soe) { System.out.println("PASS : First SOE depth = " + depth + " : " + soe); return; } - System.out.println("FAIL: no SOE in " + max_depth + " iterations"); + System.out.println("PASS: no SOE in " + max_depth + " iterations"); } }