js/src/jit-test/tests/basic/testInt32ToId.js

changeset 0
6474c204b198
     1.1 --- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     1.2 +++ b/js/src/jit-test/tests/basic/testInt32ToId.js	Wed Dec 31 06:09:35 2014 +0100
     1.3 @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
     1.4 +function testInt32ToId()
     1.5 +{
     1.6 +  // Ensure that a property which is a negative integer that does not fit in a
     1.7 +  // jsval is properly detected by the 'in' operator.
     1.8 +  var obj = { "-1073741828": 17 };
     1.9 +  var index = -1073741819;
    1.10 +  var a = [];
    1.11 +  for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
    1.12 +  {
    1.13 +    a.push(index in obj);
    1.14 +    index--;
    1.15 +  }
    1.16 +
    1.17 +  // Ensure that a property which is a negative integer that does not fit in a
    1.18 +  // jsval is properly *not* detected by the 'in' operator.  In this case
    1.19 +  // wrongly applying INT_TO_JSID to -2147483648 will shift off the sign bit
    1.20 +  // (the only bit set in that number) and bitwise-or that value with 1,
    1.21 +  // producing jsid(1) -- which actually represents "0", not "-2147483648".
    1.22 +  // Thus 'in' will report a "-2147483648" property when none exists, because
    1.23 +  // it thinks the request was really whether the object had property "0".
    1.24 +  var obj2 = { 0: 17 };
    1.25 +  var b = [];
    1.26 +  var index = -(1 << 28);
    1.27 +  for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
    1.28 +  {
    1.29 +    b.push(index in obj2);
    1.30 +    index = index - (1 << 28);
    1.31 +  }
    1.32 +
    1.33 +  return a.join(",") + b.join(",");
    1.34 +}
    1.35 +
    1.36 +assertEq(testInt32ToId(),   
    1.37 +	 "false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,true" +
    1.38 +	 "false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false,false");

mercurial