On 11/23/2015 09:05 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 11/23/2015 08:58 PM, John Rose wrote: >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com >> <mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Though, it may be better to get yet another pair of eyes. >>> >>> One minor nit: In the tests, in the summary, it is written, "Test >>> Integer.toString method*s*", but only one of the overloads is tested. >> >> Here's another nit in the tests. >> This is supposed to "wiggle around" critical points, which I agree with. >> But it only wiggles above: >> >> 39 while (base < Long.MAX_VALUE / 10) { >> 40 for (int c = 1; c < 65536; c++) { >> 41 buildAndTest(base + c); >> 42 } >> 43 base = (base == 0) ? 1 : base * 10; >> 44 } > > Yes, it *does* wiggle around: > > 71 test(sbN.toString(), -c); > 72 test(sbP.toString(), c);
Ah no, I understand now. Doing too much at the same time. Let me make tests more testy. Thanks, -Aleksey
