The Tor Browser: js/src/tests/js1_5/Array/regress-157652.js@129ffea94266 (annotated)

js/src/tests/js1_5/Array/regress-157652.js@129ffea94266 (annotated)

js/src/tests/js1_5/Array/regress-157652.js

Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:18:00 +0100

author: Michael Schloh von Bennewitz <michael@schloh.com>
date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:18:00 +0100
branch: TOR_BUG_3246
changeset 7: 129ffea94266
permissions: -rw-r--r--

Conditionally enable double key logic according to:
private browsing mode or privacy.thirdparty.isolate preference and
implement in GetCookieStringCommon and FindCookie where it counts...
With some reservations of how to convince FindCookie users to test
condition and pass a nullptr when disabling double key logic.

 // |reftest| skip-if(xulRuntime.XPCOMABI.match(/x86_64/)||Android) -- No test results
 /* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 2; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*- */
 /* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
  * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
  * file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */
 /*
  *
  * Date:    16 July 2002
  * SUMMARY: Testing that Array.sort() doesn't crash on very large arrays
  * See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157652
  *
  * How large can a JavaScript array be?
  * ECMA-262 Ed.3 Final, Section 15.4.2.2 : new Array(len)
  *
  * This states that |len| must be a a uint32_t (unsigned 32-bit integer).
  * Note the UBound for uint32's is 2^32 -1 = 0xFFFFFFFF = 4,294,967,295.
  *
  * Check:
  *              js> var arr = new Array(0xFFFFFFFF)
  *              js> arr.length
  *              4294967295
  *
  *              js> var arr = new Array(0x100000000)
  *              RangeError: invalid array length
  *
  *
  * We'll try the largest possible array first, then a couple others.
  * We're just testing that we don't crash on Array.sort().
  *
  * Try to be good about memory by nulling each array variable after it is
  * used. This will tell the garbage collector the memory is no longer needed.
  *
  * As of 2002-08-13, the JS shell runs out of memory no matter what we do,
  * when trying to sort such large arrays.
  *
  * We only want to test that we don't CRASH on the sort. So it will be OK
  * if we get the JS "out of memory" error. Note this terminates the test
  * with exit code 3. Therefore we put
  *
  *                       |expectExitCode(3);|
  *
  * The only problem will arise if the JS shell ever DOES have enough memory
  * to do the sort. Then this test will terminate with the normal exit code 0
  * and fail.
  *
  * Right now, I can't see any other way to do this, because "out of memory"
  * is not a catchable error: it cannot be trapped with try...catch.
  *
  *
  * FURTHER HEADACHE: Rhino can't seem to handle the largest array: it hangs.
  * So we skip this case in Rhino. Here is correspondence with Igor Bukanov.
  * He explains that Rhino isn't actually hanging; it's doing the huge sort:
  *
  * Philip Schwartau wrote:
  *
  * > Hi,
  * >
  * > I'm getting a graceful OOM message on trying to sort certain large
  * > arrays. But if the array is too big, Rhino simply hangs. Note that ECMA
  * > allows array lengths to be anything less than Math.pow(2,32), so the
  * > arrays I'm sorting are legal.
  * >
  * > Note below, I'm getting an instantaneous OOM error on arr.sort() for LEN
  * > = Math.pow(2, 30). So shouldn't I also get one for every LEN between
  * > that and Math.pow(2, 32)? For some reason, I start to hang with 100% CPU
  * > as LEN hits, say, Math.pow(2, 31) and higher. SpiderMonkey gives OOM
  * > messages for all of these. Should I file a bug on this?
  *
  *   Igor Bukanov wrote:
  *
  * This is due to different sorting algorithm Rhino uses when sorting
  * arrays with length > Integer.MAX_VALUE. If length can fit Java int,
  * Rhino first copies internal spare array to a temporary buffer, and then
  * sorts it, otherwise it sorts array directly. In case of very spare
  * arrays, that Array(big_number) generates, it is rather inefficient and
  * generates OutOfMemory if length fits int. It may be worth in your case
  * to optimize sorting to take into account array spareness, but then it
  * would be a good idea to file a bug about ineficient sorting of spare
  * arrays both in case of Rhino and SpiderMonkey as SM always uses a
  * temporary buffer.
  *
  */
 //-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 var BUGNUMBER = 157652;
 var summary = "Testing that Array.sort() doesn't crash on very large arrays";
 var expect = 'No Crash';
 var actual = 'No Crash';
 printBugNumber(BUGNUMBER);
 printStatus(summary);
 expectExitCode(0);
 expectExitCode(5);
 var IN_RHINO = inRhino();
 try
 {
   if (!IN_RHINO)
   {
     var a1=Array(0xFFFFFFFF);
     a1.sort();
     a1 = null;
   }
   var a2 = Array(0x40000000);
   a2.sort();
   a2=null;
   var a3=Array(0x10000000/4);
   a3.sort();
   a3=null;
 }
 catch(ex)
 {
   // handle changed 1.9 branch behavior. see bug 422348
   expect = 'InternalError: allocation size overflow';
   actual = ex + '';
 }
 reportCompare(expect, actual, summary);