Closed
Bug 1113367
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
SIMD.int32x4(0, 0) gets TypeError
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Core
JavaScript Engine
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla37
People
(Reporter: sunfish, Assigned: bbouvier)
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
2.71 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
|
39 bytes,
text/x-review-board-request
|
sunfish
:
review+
|
Details |
Invoking the SIMD.int32x4 constructor with fewer than 4 arguments:
SIMD.int32x4(0, 0)
gets this error:
typein:1:0 TypeError: SIMD requires more than 3 arguments
This behavior differs from the polyfill, which takes any number of arguments and coerces 4 of them to integers with |0.
I don't currently have a strong opinion on which is right, although we do already have code in the ecmascript_simd testsuite which happens to do this, which is how I noticed this.
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8539679 -
Flags: review?(benj)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8539679 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed patch
Review of attachment 8539679 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for jumping in. However, I'm sorry the patch is merely a hack, plus it isn't generic (float32x4 have the same behavior). It is so trivial I'll just do it, but thanks anyways :)
Attachment #8539679 -
Flags: review?(benj)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8540247 -
Flags: review?(sunfish)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
/r/1629 - Bug 1113367: SIMD (interpreter): make constructors arguments facultative;
Pull down this commit:
hg pull review -r daba7703abd9445dd9a2750383572845f7f48305
| Reporter | ||
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/1629/#review1039
::: js/src/tests/ecma_7/SIMD/constructors.js
(Diff revision 1)
> + assertEqX4(int32x4(1, 2, 3, 4), [1,2,3,4]);
Please add a few cases of constructors with more than 4 arguments too.
FYI, I filed bug https://github.com/johnmccutchan/ecmascript_simd/issues/102 on the topic of the special case of one argument.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8540247 [details]
MozReview Request: bz://1113367/bbouvier
I assumed a "Ship It" meant r+, but I guess I shouldn't assume I know what to expect from MozReview yet. Here's the r+.
Attachment #8540247 -
Flags: review?(sunfish) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → benj
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla37
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8540247 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8618936 -
Flags: review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•