RFR 8042003: java/lang/Math tests have external dependency on sun.misc.DoubleConsts and sun.misc.FloatConsts

[Amy Lu]

On 8/20/14, 1:51 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 06:50 AM, Amy Lu wrote:
>> On 8/19/14, 3:09 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On 8/18/14 12:49 AM, Amy Lu wrote:
>>>> There are jdk tests that have dependency on sun.misc.DoubleConsts 
>>>> and sun.misc.FloatConsts.
>>>> This fix is to remove above internal API dependency from the tests.
>>>>
>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8042003
>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/amylu/JDK-8042003/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>> In addition to Joe's comment, DoubleUtils and FloatUtils are
>>> needed by test/java/lang/Math/Tests.java and a few other math
>>> tests.  It may be better to include them in test/java/lang/Math
>>> rather than in the testlibrary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mandy
>>>
>>
>> Thank you Mandy and Joe for your comments!
>>
>> To confirm, DoubleUtils and FloatUtils contain *only* constants that 
>> are not defined in java.lang.{Float, Double}, and tests fixed by 
>> using constants from 1) java.lang.{Float, Double} if constants 
>> defined there; 2) DoubleUtils and FloatUtils only for additional 
>> constants that are not in java.lang.{Float, Double}.
>>
>> DoubleUtils and FloatUtils now moved to test/java/lang/Math, the 
>> updated patch:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/amylu/JDK-8042003/webrev.01/
>>
>
> The uses of DoubleUtils and FloatUtils now look okay, but I have some 
> additional comments on the contents of those types. First, I think 
> these type are better named "DoubleConsts" and "FloatConsts" since 
> they only have constants defined in them. As such, they should be 
> derived works of the sun.misc.{FloatConsts, DoubleConsts} types:
>
> * Inherit starting copyright dates of those types
> * Use "float" and "double" to talk about the types rather than "Float" 
> and "Double"
> * Include the private constructor and static initializer to check for 
> correctness conditions as in the sun.misc types
>
> Changing the simple names of the new types to match the old types will 
> also have the benefit of greatly reducing the size of the patch.
>
> (In the new files, more recent javadoc conventions should be follow 
> {@code foo} rather than <code>foo</code>, etc.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>

Yes!

Thank you so much Joe!

Patch updated: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ewang/amylu/JDK-8042003/webrev.02/

Thanks,
Amy