On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:16:19 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> While playing with the API, I've realized that some of the out of bound
>> error messgaes come out incorrectly.
>>
>> This is because the bound check is performed as follows (to avoid overflow):
>>
>>
>> Objects.checkIndex(offse
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:24:04 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> While playing with the API, I've realized that some of the out of bound error
> messgaes come out incorrectly.
>
> This is because the bound check is performed as follows (to avoid overflow):
>
>
> Objects.checkIndex(offset, this
> While playing with the API, I've realized that some of the out of bound error
> messgaes come out incorrectly.
>
> This is because the bound check is performed as follows (to avoid overflow):
>
>
> Objects.checkIndex(offset, this.length - length + 1);
>
>
> So, if out-of-bounds access is de
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 22:00:22 GMT, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> I would expect passing an non-constant exception mapper should work. The C2
> intrinsic never accesses the exception mapper argument, and a range check
> failure results in a deoptimzation back to the interpreter from which the
> exception
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:24:04 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
> While playing with the API, I've realized that some of the out of bound error
> messgaes come out incorrectly.
>
> This is because the bound check is performed as follows (to avoid overflow):
>
>
> Objects.checkIndex(offset, this
While playing with the API, I've realized that some of the out of bound error
messgaes come out incorrectly.
This is because the bound check is performed as follows (to avoid overflow):
Objects.checkIndex(offset, this.length - length + 1);
So, if out-of-bounds access is detected, the resultin
