[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR 8149338: JVM Crash caused by Marlin renderer not handling NaN coordinates

[Jim Graham]

Looks good...

			...jim

On 2/10/16 12:52 PM, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
> Jim & Phil,
>
> Here is the updated webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lbourges/marlin/marlin-8149338.1/
>
> I just simplified the exception handling code in both TextClipErrorTest
> and CrashNaNTest
>
> Cheers,
> Laurent
>
> 2016-02-10 0:46 GMT+01:00 Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com
> <mailto:james.graham at oracle.com>>:
>
>     Let me know if/when you have an updated webrev.  It should be good
>     to go, but it couldn't hurt to publish one for the archives...
>
>                              ...jim
>
>     On 2/9/16 12:51 AM, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
>
>         Jim,
>
>         Here are my answers to your 2 questions:
>
>         2016-02-09 0:14 GMT+01:00 Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com
>         <mailto:james.graham at oracle.com>
>         <mailto:james.graham at oracle.com <mailto:james.graham at oracle.com>>>:
>
>              In the test case, why are you using a log handler to check
>         for a
>              particular exception?  Shouldn't any exception logged be
>         cause for a
>              test failure?
>
>
>         I already used that code in 1 other test: TextClipErrorTest. I
>         agree it
>         can be simpler to report any exception like:
>                       public void publish(LogRecord record) {
>                           Throwable th = record.getThrown();
>                           // detect any Throwable:
>                           if (th != null) {
>                               System.out.println("Test failed:\n" +
>         record.getMessage());
>                               th.printStackTrace(System.out);
>
>                               throw new RuntimeException("Test failed:
>         ", th);
>                           }
>                       }
>
>              Is there a reason why you reversed the calculations for the
>         slope at
>              line 374?
>
>         + final double slope = (x1d - x2) / (y1d - y2);
>
>         I prefer this syntax as it is more explicit that (x1d - x2) and
>         (y1d -
>         y2) are double values (not implicit promotion).
>
>         Cheers,
>         Laurent
>
>