From 36d22d82aa202bb199967e9512281e9a53db42c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Baumann Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:33:14 +0200 Subject: Adding upstream version 115.7.0esr. Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann --- js/src/tests/non262/String/regress-179068.js | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 122 insertions(+) create mode 100644 js/src/tests/non262/String/regress-179068.js (limited to 'js/src/tests/non262/String/regress-179068.js') 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