Closed
Bug 1113367
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 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•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8539679 -
Flags: review?(benj)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•9 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•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8540247 -
Flags: review?(sunfish)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
/r/1629 - Bug 1113367: SIMD (interpreter): make constructors arguments facultative; Pull down this commit: hg pull review -r daba7703abd9445dd9a2750383572845f7f48305
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•9 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•9 years ago
|
||
https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/1629/#review1041 Ship It!
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•9 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•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/d3cb86ccd8a8
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d3cb86ccd8a8
Assignee: nobody → benj
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla37
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8540247 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8618936 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•