diff options
author | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-04-07 19:33:14 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-04-07 19:33:14 +0000 |
commit | 36d22d82aa202bb199967e9512281e9a53db42c9 (patch) | |
tree | 105e8c98ddea1c1e4784a60a5a6410fa416be2de /js/src/tests/non262/Array/regress-157652.js | |
parent | Initial commit. (diff) | |
download | firefox-esr-36d22d82aa202bb199967e9512281e9a53db42c9.tar.xz firefox-esr-36d22d82aa202bb199967e9512281e9a53db42c9.zip |
Adding upstream version 115.7.0esr.upstream/115.7.0esrupstream
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to '')
-rw-r--r-- | js/src/tests/non262/Array/regress-157652.js | 117 |
1 files changed, 117 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/js/src/tests/non262/Array/regress-157652.js b/js/src/tests/non262/Array/regress-157652.js new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..32996ca629 --- /dev/null +++ b/js/src/tests/non262/Array/regress-157652.js @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +// |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); |