1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
// |reftest| skip-if(xulRuntime.XPCOMABI.match(/x86_64|aarch64|ppc64|ppc64le|s390x|mips64|loongarch64|riscv64/)||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);
try
{
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);
|
