On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:21 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley <[email protected]>: >> There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. >> >> compiler tests: all ok >> devtools tests: all ok >> runtime tests: 68928 passed, 68 failures, 0 errors >> >> Failures: >> api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): >> all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected > > Hrm, maybe you expect them but they're not known failures. Could you > please send me (privately) the relevant .jtr file and also a description > of the system on which you're running the JCK (OS, kernel version, > hardware, etc.)? I'll forward that information on to the JCK team for > analysis. > >> api/java_util/Base64/Decoder/* (20 total): >> caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >> >> api/signaturetest/sigtest.basic.html#basic[java] (1 total): >> dtto caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >> >> many (almost all) other failures: >> +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations > > We think these are known failures, but again if you could send along the > relevant .jtr files then we can make sure. >
That last one (+-oo/Nan) might be related to: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8030212 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/68de5492a06d which was fixed in b124 (IIRC the draft RI is b121?). Paul.
