[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Fwd: CubicCurve2D.solveCubic and containment/intersection bugs.

[Denis Lila]

> Then that would be a problem. We'll have to figure out how to make
> them fail benignly if not run on a specific build (i.e. don't use
> internal rendering APIs). I'd hold off on putting these back for now...

I see. Ok, I'll think about a way to fix this. Perhaps before running
each test we could check that the implementation class we want exists
and is visible to us and if not simply print a warning?

In the meantime, I'll go ahead and push it without the tests.

Thank you,
Denis.

----- Original Message -----

> 
> ...jim
> 
> On 2/4/2011 6:02 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
> >> Do these also pass closed JDK? So far I don't know of any way to
> >> identify a test as "Open Rasterizer only"...
> >
> > I don't think so. When I run it with closed source java it
> > complains about no PathConsumer2D.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >>
> >> ...jim
> >>
> >> On 2/3/2011 5:59 PM, Denis Lila wrote:
> >>> Hi Jim.
> >>>
> >>>> The code changes look good to go.
> >>>
> >>> Nice! Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>> I'm guessing there is no regression test for this as it is
> >>>> entirely
> >>>> performance. If this fixes any quality or correctness bugs it
> >>>> would
> >>>> be
> >>>> nice to develop an automated test case to go back with it, but if
> >>>> it
> >>>> is
> >>>> just performance then they don't usually have tests...
> >>>
> >>> This changeset would be entirely performance and I don't have a
> >>> test
> >>> for it. I do however have a few regression tests that I would like
> >>> to
> >>> push. They're already in icedtea:
> >>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea6/file/12df222ab029/patches/rendering-engine-tests.patch
> >>> One of them doesn't have a sun bugid, so we should probably just
> >>> skip it.
> >>> I'm not sure how we would include them, since they all test bugs
> >>> that
> >>> have already been fixed.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Denis.