On 07/15/2015 03:33 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
Code change looks OK to me, but perhaps there should be an explicit long conversion somewhere around the getYear() part ('d.getYear() - 1980 << 25L') of the expressions to deal properly with even larger values?
The spec of the dos time has the up limit, it should not beyond 32-bit. It was not a problem when anything number overflows into up 32-bit before we tried to utilize the up bits for the < 2000ms bits.
Are there added tests missing from the updated TestExtraTime? I guess this is an intermittent issue, but it looks odd to update the test without adding some explicit test that provoke this issue.
It appears this existing test can easily catch the bug, so I just add the bugid to indicate that this regression test can be used for that particular bug. thanks, -sherman
/Claes Xueming Shen <xueming.s...@oracle.com> skrev: (15 juli 2015 21:10:39 CEST) Hi, Please help review the change for JDK-8130914. issue:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130914 webrev:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8130914 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esherman/8130914>/ This is a "regression" triggered by https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130914 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/jdk9/8073497/webrev.6 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eredestad/jdk9/8073497/webrev.6>/ In which the change is to utilize a high 32-bit of the time value to store < 2000 ms time piece. It appears the offending timestamp (year 2067...) triggers the 32-bit "overflow" when converting java time to a 32-bit dos time. Thanks, -Sherman