The Tor Browser / file comparison
comparison: js/src/jit-test/tests/basic/bug653153.js
js/src/jit-test/tests/basic/bug653153.js
- changeset 0
- 6474c204b198
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| -1:000000000000 | 0:5ba98f6229cc |
|---|---|
| 1 // ES5 15.1.2.2 step 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 /* | |
| 4 * Boundary testing for super-large positive numbers between non-exponential | |
| 5 * and in-exponential-form. | |
| 6 * | |
| 7 * NB: While 1e21 is exactly representable as an IEEE754 double-precision | |
| 8 * number, its nearest neighboring representable values are a good distance | |
| 9 * away, 65536 to be precise. | |
| 10 */ | |
| 11 | |
| 12 // This is the boundary in theory. | |
| 13 assertEq(parseInt(1e21), 1); | |
| 14 | |
| 15 // This is the boundary in practice. | |
| 16 assertEq(parseInt(1e21 - 65537) > 1e20, true); | |
| 17 assertEq(parseInt(1e21 - 65536), 1); | |
| 18 assertEq(parseInt(1e21 + 65536), 1); | |
| 19 | |
| 20 // Check that we understand floating point accuracy near the boundary | |
| 21 assertEq(1e21 - 65537 !== 1e21 - 65536, true); | |
| 22 assertEq(1e21 - 65536, 1e21); | |
| 23 assertEq(1e21 + 65535, 1e21); | |
| 24 assertEq(1e21 + 65536, 1e21); | |
| 25 | |
| 26 // ES5 leaves exact precision in ToString(bigMagNum) undefined, which | |
| 27 // might make this value inconsistent across implementations (maybe, | |
| 28 // nobody's done the math here). Regardless, it's definitely a number | |
| 29 // very close to 1, and not a large-magnitude positive number. | |
| 30 assertEq(1e21 + 65537 !== 1e21, true); | |
| 31 assertEq(parseInt(1e21 + 65537) < 1.001, true); | |
| 32 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 /* | |
| 35 * Now do the same tests for super-large negative numbers crossing the | |
| 36 * opposite boundary. | |
| 37 */ | |
| 38 | |
| 39 // This is the boundary in theory. | |
| 40 assertEq(parseInt(-1e21), -1); | |
| 41 | |
| 42 // This is the boundary in practice. | |
| 43 assertEq(parseInt(-1e21 + 65537) < -1e20, true); | |
| 44 assertEq(parseInt(-1e21 + 65536), -1); | |
| 45 assertEq(parseInt(-1e21 - 65536), -1); | |
| 46 | |
| 47 // Check that we understand floating point accuracy near the boundary | |
| 48 assertEq(-1e21 + 65537 !== -1e21 + 65536, true); | |
| 49 assertEq(-1e21 + 65536, -1e21); | |
| 50 assertEq(-1e21 - 65535, -1e21); | |
| 51 assertEq(-1e21 - 65536, -1e21); | |
| 52 | |
| 53 // ES5 leaves exact precision in ToString(bigMagNum) undefined, which | |
| 54 // might make this value inconsistent across implementations (maybe, | |
| 55 // nobody's done the math here). Regardless, it's definitely a number | |
| 56 // very close to -1, and not a large-magnitude negative number. | |
| 57 assertEq(-1e21 - 65537 !== 1e21, true); | |
| 58 assertEq(parseInt(-1e21 - 65537) > -1.001, true); | |
| 59 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 /* Check values around the boundary. */ | |
| 62 arr = [1e0, 5e1, 9e19, 0.1e20, 1.3e20, 1e20, 9e20, 9.99e20, 0.1e21, | |
| 63 1e21, 1.0e21, 2e21, 2e20, 2.1e22, 9e21, 0.1e22, 1e22, 3e46, 3e23, 3e100, 3.4e200, 7e1000, | |
| 64 1e21, 1e21+65537, 1e21+65536, 1e21-65536, 1e21-65537]; | |
| 65 | |
| 66 /* Check across a range of values in case we missed anything. */ | |
| 67 for (var i = 0; i < 4000; i++) { | |
| 68 arr.push(1e19 + i*1e19); | |
| 69 } | |
| 70 | |
| 71 for (var i in arr) { | |
| 72 assertEq(parseInt( arr[i]), parseInt(String( arr[i]))); | |
| 73 assertEq(parseInt(-arr[i]), parseInt(String(-arr[i]))); | |
| 74 } | |
| 75 | |
| 76 |
