A behavior difference about reachable test for address zero
Hi all,
I found a behavior difference when running the testcase PingZero on
linux and windows.
On Linux, it prints "reachable" while on windows "unreachable", which is
the same with
the result of running "ping 0.0.0.0" on these two platforms.
Is it a bug or intended?
PingZero.java :
//
import java.net.*;
class PingZero {
public static void main(String args[]) {
try {
InetAddress inetAddress = InetAddress.getByAddress(new byte[] {
0,
0, 0, 0 });
boolean b = inetAddress.isReachable((int) (1.0 * 3000));
if (b) {
System.out.println(" 0.0.0.0 is reachable ! ");
} else {
System.out.println(" 0.0.0.0 is not reachable ! ");
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
//
--
Best Regards,
Sean Chou
PingZero.java
Description: Binary data
hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7112670: Inet4AddressImpl should use getaddrinfo/getnameinfo
Changeset: 81987765cb81 Author:ngmr Date: 2011-11-11 14:40 + URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/81987765cb81 7112670: Inet4AddressImpl should use getaddrinfo/getnameinfo Reviewed-by: chegar, alanb, mduigou, ngmr Contributed-by: Charles Lee ! src/solaris/native/java/net/Inet4AddressImpl.c ! src/solaris/native/java/net/Inet6AddressImpl.c ! src/solaris/native/java/net/net_util_md.c ! src/solaris/native/java/net/net_util_md.h
Re: Question about getaddrinfo in Inet4AddressImpl.c
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 20:57 +, Chris Hegarty wrote: > Thank you Charles, and Neil. > > I ran some builds and tests and all looks good to me. Thanks for fixing > the warnings, I know they were not caused by your changes. > > Just noticed that we haven't just filed a bug for this, so I just created: >CR 7112670: Inet4AddressImpl should use getaddrinfo/getnameinfo > > Neil, >I assume you will push this? > > -Chris. > Hi Chris, Thank you for creating the bug id for this issue. I've now pushed the change [1]. However, I've just realised I've foolishly pushed a previous version of the change, and not the final agreed version. (aargh!) Could you please advise me how i might best rectify this, and furnish me with another bug id if I need one for this purpose? Humble apologies for this :-( Regards, Neil [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/81987765cb81 -- Unless stated above: IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: Question about getaddrinfo in Inet4AddressImpl.c
On 11/22/11 09:27 AM, Neil Richards wrote: Hi Chris, Thank you for creating the bug id for this issue. I've now pushed the change [1]. However, I've just realised I've foolishly pushed a previous version of the change, and not the final agreed version. (aargh!) No problem. This happens from time to time. Could you please advise me how i might best rectify this, and furnish me with another bug id if I need one for this purpose? Let me know the details synopsis/descriptions/etc and I'll file a new CR. I'm guessing its just some cleanup/style issues, right? -Chris. Humble apologies for this :-( Regards, Neil [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/81987765cb81
Re: Question about getaddrinfo in Inet4AddressImpl.c
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:38 +, Chris Hegarty wrote: > Let me know the details synopsis/descriptions/etc and I'll file a new > CR. I'm guessing its just some cleanup/style issues, right? > > -Chris. I've uploaded a webrev with the gap between the two [1]. The differences are the use of memset (rather than bzero) and NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN). Thanks for helping me out with this, Regards, Neil [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngmr/ojdk-229.1/webrev.00/ -- Unless stated above: IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: code review request : JDK 7 backport: 7102369 RedirectLimit & Redirect307Test fail intermittently
On 11/21/11 08:10 PM, Rob McKenna wrote: webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/7095949/webrev.00/ http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7095949 Looks fine to me. Thanks for porting this to 7u-dev. These intermittent failures are a real pain! -Chris. -Rob
Re: Question about getaddrinfo in Inet4AddressImpl.c
Neil, I filed: CR 7114558: "Inet4AddressImpl should use memset (rather than bzero) and NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN)" And also reviewed your webrev. Looks fine. -Chris. On 11/22/11 10:00 AM, Neil Richards wrote: On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:38 +, Chris Hegarty wrote: Let me know the details synopsis/descriptions/etc and I'll file a new CR. I'm guessing its just some cleanup/style issues, right? -Chris. I've uploaded a webrev with the gap between the two [1]. The differences are the use of memset (rather than bzero) and NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN). Thanks for helping me out with this, Regards, Neil [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ngmr/ojdk-229.1/webrev.00/
hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7114558: Inet4AddressImpl should use memset (rather than bzero) and NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN)
Changeset: ee2fa62fb09f Author:ngmr Date: 2011-11-22 09:51 + URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/ee2fa62fb09f 7114558: Inet4AddressImpl should use memset (rather than bzero) and NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN) Reviewed-by: chegar Contributed-by: Neil Richards ! src/solaris/native/java/net/Inet4AddressImpl.c ! src/solaris/native/java/net/Inet6AddressImpl.c
Re: Question about getaddrinfo in Inet4AddressImpl.c
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 10:49 +, Chris Hegarty wrote: > Neil, > > I filed: > CR 7114558: "Inet4AddressImpl should use memset (rather than bzero) and > NI_MAXHOST (rather than MAXHOSTNAMELEN)" > > And also reviewed your webrev. Looks fine. > > -Chris. Hi Chris, Thanks for reviewing this for me - I've now pushed the change up [1]. Regards, Neil [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/ee2fa62fb09f -- Unless stated above: IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: A behavior difference about reachable test for address zero
On 22/11/2011 08:40, Sean Chou wrote: Hi all, I found a behavior difference when running the testcase PingZero on linux and windows. On Linux, it prints "reachable" while on windows "unreachable", which is the same with the result of running "ping 0.0.0.0" on these two platforms. Is it a bug or intended? Do you get the same thing when you use the ping command? -Alan
hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 3 new changesets
Changeset: 1945abeb82a0 Author:mullan Date: 2011-11-22 08:58 -0500 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/1945abeb82a0 7093090: Reduce synchronization in java.security.Policy.getPolicyNoCheck Reviewed-by: valeriep ! src/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java Changeset: bb8f19b80557 Author:mullan Date: 2011-11-22 09:00 -0500 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/bb8f19b80557 Merge - test/java/io/FileDescriptor/FileChannelFDTest.java - test/java/io/etc/FileDescriptorSharing.java Changeset: b4d7020c2a40 Author:mullan Date: 2011-11-22 09:17 -0500 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/b4d7020c2a40 Merge
