Issue 160580: Add safe handling of NaN to Posix platform-dependent time functions.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Issue 160580: Add safe handling of NaN to Posix platform-dependent time functions. (Closed)

Created:
11 years, 4 months ago by William Hesse

Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago

Reviewers:
Kasper Lund

CC:
v8-dev

Base URL:
http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/

Visibility:
Public.

Description

Add safe handling of NaN to Posix platform-dependent time functions. Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2615

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 1

Patch Set 2 : '' #

Created: 11 years, 4 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

	Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+45 lines, -7 lines)			Patch
M	src/date-delay.js	View		2 chunks	+5 lines, -5 lines	0 comments	Download
M	src/platform-posix.cc	View		2 chunks	+2 lines, -2 lines	0 comments	Download
A	test/mjsunit/regress/regress-416.js	View	1	1 chunk	+38 lines, -0 lines	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 2 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

William Hesse

This will be tested on most platforms on Flexo, and I will also test on ...

11 years, 4 months ago (2009-08-04 09:23:08 UTC) #1

Kasper Lund

11 years, 4 months ago (2009-08-04 09:28:25 UTC) #2

http://codereview.chromium.org/160580/diff/1/4
File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-416.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/160580/diff/1/4#newcode32
Line 32: assertEquals((new Date(1e81)).valueOf(), Number.NaN, "new Date(1e81)");
This seems backwards to me. The expected value should go before the actual value
and you can't really compare NaN's this way. Shouldn't it be something like:

assertTrue(isNaN(new Date(1e81).getTime()), "new Date(1e81");

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages