So to summarize so we can close this. I assume that we all agree that
the JNI spec is lacking, and that we should follow the RI as it's
reasonable behavior.
Gregory has added a patch to HARMONY-1156 and I'm going to accept and
apply that.
If there is any opposition, please speak now.
geir
Ivan
+1 for the following check:
a) offset is negative or
b) len is negative or
c) off + len > buff.length
--
Ivan
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
> It looks like that it is possible to get zero bytes even at the very
> end of array. IMHO the order of
2006/8/15, Jimmy, Jing Lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
IMHO our Compatibility guidelines, if the spec is not clear, we
should follow RI. So no matter what happens to the spec(unless it
describe the detail condition of exception-thrown), it is still OK to
follow RI here, am I right?
Ok you didn't
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 23:37 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
I've written a test [1] myself and cannot say I completely understand the
result. With length = 0 RI 1.5 allows calling to GetArrayRegion
with start equal to array length but throws AIOOBE if start is greater
tha
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> On Monday 14 August 2006 23:37 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> I've written a test [1] myself and cannot say I completely understand the
>>> result. With length = 0 RI 1.5 allows calling to GetArrayRegion
>>> with start equal to array length but throws AIOOBE if start is g
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought what you mentioned as
"compatibility guideline" is this[1], as the url shows, it's so far only
classlib compatibility guideline, though I guess most of them makes
sense for VM, but we may need some discussion to decide, let the VM
developers speak for t
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 23:37 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
I've written a test [1] myself and cannot say I completely understand the
result. With length = 0 RI 1.5 allows calling to GetArrayRegion
with start equal to array length but throws AIOOBE if start is greater
than a
On Monday 14 August 2006 23:37 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > I've written a test [1] myself and cannot say I completely understand the
> > result. With length = 0 RI 1.5 allows calling to GetArrayRegion
> > with start equal to array length but throws AIOOBE if start is greater
> > than array length.
Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> On Monday 14 August 2006 20:13 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
>>> It looks like that it is possible to get zero bytes even at the very
>>> end of array. IMHO the order of boundary checks makes sense here.
>> This is an interesting problem. The JNI spec
On Monday 14 August 2006 20:13 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
> > It looks like that it is possible to get zero bytes even at the very
> > end of array. IMHO the order of boundary checks makes sense here.
>
> This is an interesting problem. The JNI spec is clear that we should
> th
Ivan Volosyuk wrote:
> It looks like that it is possible to get zero bytes even at the very
> end of array. IMHO the order of boundary checks makes sense here.
This is an interesting problem. The JNI spec is clear that we should
throw an exception when one of the indexes isn't valid, and start =
It looks like that it is possible to get zero bytes even at the very
end of array. IMHO the order of boundary checks makes sense here.
--
Ivan
On 8/11/06, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/8/11, Jimmy, Jing Lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in the former threa
2006/8/11, Jimmy, Jing Lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
As discussed in the former thread, I find that a JNI of DRLVM
(GetByteArrayRegion) differs from RI in passing parameter
(byte[count],count,0). RI (and J9 VM) returns immediately but DRLVM
throws an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
IMHO
I think we should just fix it in DRLVM, although performance-wise,
wouldn't also fixing in Java make sense too?
As Tim said, raise a JIRA.
geir
Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in the former thread, I find that a JNI of DRLVM
> (GetByteArrayRegion) differs from RI in passing pa
Jimmy, Jing Lv wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in the former thread, I find that a JNI of DRLVM
> (GetByteArrayRegion) differs from RI in passing parameter
> (byte[count],count,0). RI (and J9 VM) returns immediately but DRLVM
> throws an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
> IMHO, it is better t
Hi,
As discussed in the former thread, I find that a JNI of DRLVM
(GetByteArrayRegion) differs from RI in passing parameter
(byte[count],count,0). RI (and J9 VM) returns immediately but DRLVM
throws an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
IMHO, it is better to improve here, make it follow R
16 matches
Mail list logo
