Issue 2877004: Update JSON.stringify to floor the space parameter (fixes issue 753)

Issue 2877004: Update JSON.stringify to floor the space parameter (fixes issue 753) (Closed)

Created:
10 years, 5 months ago by Rico

Modified:
9 years, 6 months ago

Reviewers:
Lasse Reichstein

CC:
v8-dev

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

Visibility:
Public.

Description

Update JSON.stringify to floor the space parameter (fixes issue 753). Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=4972

Patch Set 4 : '' #

Created: 10 years, 5 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

	Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+37 lines, -6 lines)			Patch
M	src/json.js	View	1 2 3	1 chunk	+1 line, -1 line	0 comments	Download
M	test/es5conform/es5conform.status	View	2	1 chunk	+0 lines, -5 lines	0 comments	Download
A	test/mjsunit/regress/regress-753.js	View		1 chunk	+36 lines, -0 lines	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

Lasse Reichstein

LGTM http://codereview.chromium.org/2877004/diff/5001/6001 File src/json.js (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/2877004/diff/5001/6001#newcode244 src/json.js:244: space = $Math.min($Math.floor(space), 10); According to spec we ...

10 years, 5 months ago (2010-06-29 07:08:47 UTC) #2

Rico

10 years, 5 months ago (2010-06-29 07:22:19 UTC) #3

http://codereview.chromium.org/2877004/diff/5001/6001
File src/json.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/2877004/diff/5001/6001#newcode244
src/json.js:244: space = $Math.min($Math.floor(space), 10);
On 2010/06/29 07:08:47, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> According to spec we should us ToInteger here.
> This gives the same result, though, since we still do nothing on negative
> numbers and NaN (where floor differes from ToInteger).

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/2877004/diff/5001/6002
File test/es5conform/es5conform.status (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/2877004/diff/5001/6002#newcode64
test/es5conform/es5conform.status:64:
chapter15/15.2/15.2.3/15.2.3.3/15.2.3.3-4-20: FAIL_OK
On 2010/06/29 07:08:47, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> Why isn't this UNIMPLEMENTED instead of FAIL_OK?
> FAIL_OK suggests that we are not interested in fixing it, ever (we fail, and
> it's ok).
I will upload a new version of the test expectations in another change fixing
this throughout the file.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages