This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Patch: FYI: small test suite change
- From: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: GCC libjava patches <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 09 Jul 2003 23:38:46 +0200
- Subject: Re: Patch: FYI: small test suite change
- References: <email@example.com>
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 22:57, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Anyway, this makes one of the tests a little more efficient, so we
> don't time out when running it in the interpreter.
> from Jeff Sturm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * libjava.lang/SyncTest.java (run): Cache .class value.
This test has been very important in the past since it showed two
1. That .class constructs were not cached at all.
2. That when doing a class lookup (and stack walk) using the interpreter
was horribly slow (which seem to have been fixed in 3.4).
Combined these problems made SyncTest fail on a lot of machines (and it
still fails on my slow powerpc box).
I agree that the purpose of SyncTest shouldn't be to test whether or not
the compiler generates (efficient) code to correctly cache .class
constructs. But shouldn't there now be a test that does explicitly test
this? That test can then probably XFAIL since gcj -C does indeed not
cache .class constructs (jikes for example does this correctly).