On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:46:41 GMT, fabioromano1 <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Relaying comments from a colleague:
>> 
>> 1. Half of the random bits are wasted by the use of `nextInt()`, which by 
>> default invokes `nextLong()` and throws away the lower 32 bits. Not sure if 
>> complicating the code to use all the 64 bits of `nextLong()` is worthwhile, 
>> though.
>> 
>> 2. The way the random bits fill the magnitude array is different. This might 
>> break existing reproducible tests with seeded random number generators and 
>> fixed seed. Not sure if this is a real problem in practice, though.
>> 
>> 3. There seems to be no test coverage that ensures the `BigInteger` 
>> invariant has either `mag.length == 0` or `mag[0] != 0`. While the code 
>> obviously ensures it, future changes might not, so it might make sense to 
>> have this aspect covered by a test.
>
> @bplb
> 1. It would complicate the code, but even use the Random generator less 
> times, so the choice is between code more complicated or more calls to Random 
> generator.
> 
> 2. This would be a problem only when, to make some comparisons, a test uses 
> the order of filling the magnitude used by the algorithm, I think.
> 
> 3. If it has to be done, I think it should be by an assertion at the end of 
> `ranfomBits(int, Random)` method, since there is no way to access the class 
> fields for a method outside the package.

@fabioromano1 

About item 2. If a test external to OpenJDK uses a seedable random generator 
and initializes it with a fixed seed, and if it then compares the result with 
an expected value, after the change the test breaks. As mentioned, this might 
not be a problem in practice.

About item 3. You can take a look at [this 
test](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/test/jdk/java/math/BigInteger/ByteArrayConstructorTest.java)
 to see how to access the fields using [this 
class](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/test/jdk/java/math/BigInteger/java.base/java/math/Accessor.java).

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16817#issuecomment-1840635876

Reply via email to