From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mauve-discuss-return-469-listarch-mauve-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 29207 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2003 00:09:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mauve-discuss-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/mauve-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 29190 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2003 00:09:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Jan 2003 00:09:32 -0000
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0JNesB07114
	for <mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:40:54 -0500
Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15])
	by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K09On13735;
	Sun, 19 Jan 2003 19:09:24 -0500
Received: from [192.168.64.12] (vpn50-8.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.8])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0K09ME05034;
	Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:09:22 -0800
Subject: Re: 600+ BigDecimal tests
From: Anthony Green <green@redhat.com>
To: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>, Dalibor Topic <robilad@yahoo.com>,
   mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com, crawley@piglet.dstc.edu.au
In-Reply-To: <200301192339.h0JNdufh022135@piglet.dstc.edu.au>
References: <200301192339.h0JNdufh022135@piglet.dstc.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:09:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1043021531.2354.27.camel@escape>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2

On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 15:39, Stephen Crawley wrote:
>   * Some of the other tests check exception message strings, and are
>     failing because the messages are different. 
> 
> I don't know whether this is a bug or not.  Is Classpath aiming to
> give the same exception messages as the Sun JDK implementation ???

I don't think so (could be wrong).  I suppose we should remove these
tests.

> 
>   * The 'has001' failure is due to differences in the way that 
>     Classpath and the SUN JDK are calculating hashcodes.
> 
> I don't know whether this is a bug or not.  Is Classpath aiming to
> give the same hash code values as the Sun JDK implementation ???

I know that some people have spent time figuring out how Sun hashes
various objects, although I don't know if this is a policy. 

AG