User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6 The following: <xsl:value-of select="format-number(999999999999.00, '#,##0.00##')" /> outputs "999,999,999,999.00" as expected, however this: <xsl:value-of select="format-number(999999999998.00, '#,##0.00##')" /> outputs "999,999,999,997.:0" which isn't what I expected! The same test in Saxon and IE6 (MS-XML 3?) works as I would expect. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Go to http://clickindustrial.com/test/public/2003-05-25/moz-format-number/index.xml to see the problem. 2. The stylesheet is accessible at http://clickindustrial.com/test/public/2003-05-25/moz-format-number/index.xsl Problem discovered in Firebird 0.6 but reproduceable in Mozilla 1.3
works for me in a recent build. Reporter, please try this with a more recent nightly or with the 1.4rc1 release. Reopen this bug if it still doesn't work or mark it as verified if it works.
Tried 1.4rc1 on the same Win2k Pro SP3 machine and it still fails. (I had removed the old 1.3 version from Program Files prior to install, however the same user profile was being used - I suspect this irelevant, but mention it just in case!) I also tried the test on a Linux (Red Hat 7) machine, using an older Moz build (User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312) and it works fine. So perhaps this affects win32 or Windows 2000 only? When I get a chance, I'll test 1.4rc1 on WinXP. Prior to filling this bug, I did post the problem to: http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11859 where another person did have the same problem, so I don't believe its a problem with my OS installation.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: WORKSFORME → ---
I know we used to have this problem, but it was fixed back in bug 156594, so that might be what the other mz-person is seeing. Hmm.. I still can't reproduce this on my win2000 mashine. Do you have yours set to any particular language? And are you *sure* you're testing using the 1.4rc1 build? Please open Help->AboutMozilla just to be sure.
Definately testing with 1.4rc1. I have now additonally tested on NT4 and WinXP and got screen grabs to prove it! 1). http://clickindustrial.com/test/public/2003-05-25/moz-format-number/w2k.png 2). http://clickindustrial.com/test/public/2003-05-25/moz-format-number/linux.png 3). http://clickindustrial.com/test/public/2003-05-25/moz-format-number/nt4.png 4). http://clickindustrial.com/test/public/2003-05-25/moz-format-number/winxp.jpg 1). My crufty Win2000pro machine. This has had previous Moz's on it and all sorts of junk, so if it were only this machine failing, I'd blame the OS! 2). Linux RedHat7 and Mozilla 1.3. This is the *only* working system I have. 3). NT4. This machine is *very* clean. Just NT4, SP6a, MS-SQL7, NT Option pack, VNC and thats about it. It has never had any previous Moz version on it. 4). WinXP. This machine has never had a previous Moz version on it, but does have various other junk. Just to re-cap. I originally found the problem in Moz-Firebird 0.6 on my Win2K machine. At the time I still had Moz 1.3 loaded and this exhibited the same problem. I've since loaded Moz 1.4rc1 and this too has the same problem. Moz-Firebird 0.6 on a very clean NT4 machine and slightly less clean WinXP machine also exhibits the same problem. But hey, Linux is fine so I guess that tells me something!
This is *very* weird, I can reproduce this with an official 1.3 or 1.4rc1 build, but not with my home-made tip-build. And there has been no functional changes to format-number() since 1.2. The only thing I can think of is if NSPR is broken and behaves differently in official builds.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
cc'ing wtc since I suspect NSPR returns the wrong string from PR_dtoa. Basically it seems like PR_dtoa returns a string like "999999999997:0" instead of the expected "99999999999800". Wtc: do you know if NSPR has had, or do have any problems like this. We're using mode 0 with ndigits 0. The call is located at http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/extensions/transformiix/source/xslt/functions/txFormatNumberFunctionCall.cpp#298
Cc'ing khanson too since he knows dtoa
CC'ing dbradley, I think he once solved a similar problem.
Dbradley points out that this looks similar to bug 160602 which was about a bug in jsdtoa.
Also, see bug 140852.
Created attachment 125006 [details] [diff] [review] Proposed patch: compile prdtoa.c with /Op This is indeed the same as bug 140852. It happens if you compile prdtoa.c optimized with Visual C++ 6.0 Processor Pack. If you did not install the Processor Pack, you don't have this problem. The same fix works. I am only compiling prdtoa.c with /Op. I'm not using /Op on other files in NSPR.
wtc: do you think we could get this on the 1.4branch? Seems kind'a serious since apparently many big numbers get wrongly formatted? Who should r/sr?
Anyone familiar with bug 140852 and its solution can review my patch. My patch is the same as the fix for that bug except that I use the /Op flag only on prdtoa.c. I've verified that that's sufficient.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment on attachment 125006 [details] [diff] [review] Proposed patch: compile prdtoa.c with /Op requesting review. This patch is basically the same as from bug 140852, but enables it for the NSPR-copy of dtoa.c
Attachment #125006 - Flags: review?(seawood)
Comment on attachment 125006 [details] [diff] [review] Proposed patch: compile prdtoa.c with /Op
Attachment #125006 - Flags: review?(seawood) → review+
wtc: What is the protocol for landing stuff in NSPR? Do you think this patch is safe enough to land on the 1.4 branch? It would be very nice to have since it is a regression and it breaks outputting large numbers in XSLT (and i suspect any other place that uses NSPR to convert double->string)
Changed product from Browser:XSLT to NSPR.
Assignee: peterv → wtc
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Component: XSLT → NSPR
Product: Browser → NSPR
QA Contact: keith → wtc
Target Milestone: --- → 4.4
Version: Trunk → 4.3
Attachment #125006 - Flags: approval1.4?
Comment on attachment 125006 [details] [diff] [review] Proposed patch: compile prdtoa.c with /Op Patch checked into NSPR tip (4.4+) and NSPRPUB_PRE_4_2_CLIENT_BRANCH (Mozilla 1.5 alpha).
This is actually biting me on linux on the s390x as well. Is there an easy way to disable optimization for this file on that platform as well?
Chris, if you tell me what compiler flag I should use, I can put together a patch to disable optimization for prdtoa.c on linux on the s390x.
requesting blocking since this affects multiple platforms and is lowrisk. The reason it is lowrisk is that the same compilerflag has been set on a copy of this file in the js-engine and has worked fine there since 1.3. See also comment 19
I'm not sure which flags it does use, wouldn't that be part of what's generated from autoconf? We just need to remove any -O type flags.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I wanted to know if there is a gcc flag that disables only the optimizations that make the floating-point calculations in prdtoa.c produce incorrect results. If there is none, then we can remove any -O type flags, disabling *all* optimizations. Can you try -ffloat-store? (See bug 140852 comment 34.) Do this: 1. Understand the proposed patch for this bug. 2. In your build tree, edit nsprpub/pr/src/misc/Makefile and add the following underneath the change I added for WINNT: ifeq ($(OS_ARCH),Linux) $(OBJDIR)/prdtoa.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): prdtoa.c @$(MAKE_OBJDIR) $$(CC) -o $@ -c $(CFLAGS) -ffloat-store $< endif Note the use of tabs at the beginning of makefile rule commands. 3. In nsprpub/pr/src/misc, remove prdtoa.o. 4. Change directory to nsprpub and do gmake. This will recompile prdtoa.c with -ffloat-store and rebuild libnspr4.so.
Using -ffloat-store didn't seem to make a difference for me.
Comment on attachment 125441 [details] [diff] [review] patch that disables optimization for prdtoa.c doesn't this need to be done for the js-copy as well?
I'm not sure. I haven't had any problems with the JS version, but it might be that I haven't exercised it enough. Any suggestions how to do that?
just evaluate the js alert(String(819187200000)); It should give you something other then "819187200000" if the bug is in js too
Comment on attachment 125006 [details] [diff] [review] Proposed patch: compile prdtoa.c with /Op a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to the 1.4 branch.
Attachment #125006 - Flags: approval1.4? → approval1.4+
a=adt to land this on the 1.4 branch.
Patch checked into MOZILLA_1_4_BRANCH (Mozilla 1.4 final).
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 16 years ago → 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.