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");
     }
 }



Reply via email to