1 files changed, 122 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/js/src/tests/non262/String/regress-179068.js b/js/src/tests/non262/String/regress-179068.js
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..89376fcee1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/js/src/tests/non262/String/regress-179068.js
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+/* -*- indent-tabs-mode: nil; js-indent-level: 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:    09 November 2002
+ * SUMMARY: Test that interpreter can handle string literals exceeding 64K
+ * See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179068
+ *
+ * Test that the interpreter can handle string literals exceeding 64K limit.
+ * For that the script passes to eval() "str ='LONG_STRING_LITERAL';" where
+ * LONG_STRING_LITERAL is a string with 200K chars.
+ *
+ *   Igor Bukanov explains the technique used below:
+ *
+ * > Philip Schwartau wrote:
+ * >...
+ * > Here is the heart of the testcase:
+ * >
+ * >   // Generate 200K long string
+ * >   var long_str = duplicate(LONG_STR_SEED, N);
+ * >   var str = "";
+ * >   eval("str='".concat(long_str, "';"));
+ * >   var test_is_ok = (str.length == LONG_STR_SEED.length * N);
+ * >
+ * >
+ * > The testcase creates two identical strings, |long_str| and |str|. It
+ * > uses eval() simply to assign the value of |long_str| to |str|. Why is
+ * > it necessary to have the variable |str|, then? Why not just create
+ * > |long_str| and test it? Wouldn't this be enough:
+ * >
+ * >   // Generate 200K long string
+ * >   var long_str = duplicate(LONG_STR_SEED, N);
+ * >   var test_is_ok = (long_str.length == LONG_STR_SEED.length * N);
+ * >
+ * > Or do we specifically need to test eval() to exercise the interpreter?
+ *
+ * The reason for eval is to test string literals like in 'a string literal
+ * with 100 000 characters...', Rhino deals fine with strings generated at
+ * run time where lengths > 64K. Without eval it would be necessary to have
+ * a test file excedding 64K which is not that polite for CVS and then a
+ * special treatment for the compiled mode in Rhino should be added.
+ *
+ *
+ * >
+ * > If so, is it important to use the concat() method in the assignment, as
+ * > you have done: |eval("str='".concat(long_str, "';"))|, or can we simply
+ * > do |eval("str = long_str;")| ?
+ *
+ * The concat is a replacement for eval("str='"+long_str+"';"), but as
+ * long_str is huge, this leads to constructing first a new string via
+ * "str='"+long_str and then another one via ("str='"+long_str) + "';"
+ * which takes time under JDK 1.1 on a something like StrongArm 200MHz.
+ * Calling concat makes less copies, that is why it is used in the
+ * duplicate function and this is faster then doing recursion like in the
+ * test case to test that 64K different string literals can be handled.
+ *
+ */
+//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+var UBound = 0;
+var BUGNUMBER = 179068;
+var summary = 'Test that interpreter can handle string literals exceeding 64K';
+var status = '';
+var statusitems = [];
+var actual = '';
+var actualvalues = [];
+var expect= '';
+var expectedvalues = [];
+var LONG_STR_SEED = "0123456789";
+var N = 20 * 1024;
+var str = "";
+
+
+// Generate 200K long string and assign it to |str| via eval()
+var long_str = duplicate(LONG_STR_SEED, N);
+eval("str='".concat(long_str, "';"));
+
+status = inSection(1);
+actual = str.length == LONG_STR_SEED.length * N
+  expect = true;
+addThis();
+
+
+
+//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+test();
+//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+
+function duplicate(str, count)
+{
+  var tmp = new Array(count);
+
+  while (count != 0)
+    tmp[--count] = str;
+
+  return String.prototype.concat.apply("", tmp);
+}
+
+
+function addThis()
+{
+  statusitems[UBound] = status;
+  actualvalues[UBound] = actual;
+  expectedvalues[UBound] = expect;
+  UBound++;
+}
+
+
+function test()
+{
+  printBugNumber(BUGNUMBER);
+  printStatus(summary);
+
+  for (var i=0; i<UBound; i++)
+  {
+    reportCompare(expectedvalues[i], actualvalues[i], statusitems[i]);
+  }
+}