Closed
Bug 469397
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
(0.5).toFixed(0) is 0, should be 1
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect, P2)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla1.9.2a1
People
(Reporter: apeller, Assigned: crowderbt)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression, verified1.9.1)
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
In FF3, this expression returns 1. In FF3b2, it returns 0. ECMA262 says it should round up to 1. (IE has a bug where it returns 0, FWIW, even for 0.9)
Comment 1•12 years ago


As near as I can tell, it switched from 1 to "" during http://hg.mozilla.org/mozillacentral/pushloghtml?startdate=20080806+00%3A00%3A00&enddate=20080807+04%3A00%3A00 and then to 0 during http://hg.mozilla.org/mozillacentral/pushloghtml?startdate=20081014+00%3A00%3A00&enddate=20081015+04%3A00%3A00
Comment 2•12 years ago


Er, that second range should be http://hg.mozilla.org/mozillacentral/pushloghtml?startdate=20081013+00%3A00%3A00&enddate=20081014+04%3A00%3A00
Comment 3•12 years ago


And that second range corresponds to a TM merge. :(
Comment 4•12 years ago


But it does contain bug 459606.
Comment 5•12 years ago


The first range was wrong too. The correct range is http://hg.mozilla.org/mozillacentral/pushloghtml?startdate=20080805+00%3A00%3A00&enddate=20080806+04%3A00%3A00
Comment 6•12 years ago


OK. So yeah, the first range contains bug 384244 and the second range contains the bug Blake pointed out. Those are the two culprits involved.
Flags: blocking1.9.1?
Keywords: regression
Comment 7•12 years ago


OK. So we call dtoa(). We get to line 2917, which does a check for d < 1 (which we have here) and if so scales everything by a factor of 10. So now d == 5. Then, because ilim == 0, we do this: if (dval(d) > dval(eps)) goto one_digit; if (dval(d) < dval(eps)) goto no_digits; goto fast_failed; eps is an epsilon double value, d == 0, so we go to fast_failed. Then we start doing the bigint computations there and end up in the no_digits case. In this case ilim == 0, mode == 3. So to end up there we need to have: cmb(b,S = multadd(S,5,0)) <= 0 In this case, b == S as far as I can tell. Both are 671088640 (after the multadd, that is).
Assignee  
Comment 8•12 years ago


Would love to have your opinion on this "fix", bz. It does fix the reported bug, but I am not confident that it's the Right Fix. (will get a js/src peer to look after you've seen it)
Assignee: general → crowder
Attachment #353092 
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 9•12 years ago


Yikes. Comment 7 was my firstever look at this code... This does sorta seem to make sense, but I only have a very weak idea of what that comparison is trying to do. I'd have to read much more carefully through all this bigint stuff to make sure it's really the right thing. Am I really as qualified as we have to do that? :( I was kinda hoping someone else had looked at this code a bit more than myself...
Assignee  
Comment 10•12 years ago


Yeah, Igor knows it pretty well, but since it was fresh in your mind I thought I'd start with you. He's next. :)
Comment 11•12 years ago


bz is the most advanceddegreeholding Mathematician around ;). Is the bug in upstream dtoa.c? /be
Assignee  
Comment 12•12 years ago


brendan: That's not clear. We chose to fix the (0.1).toFixed() bug here, but it's possible we should've fixed it externally. With the fix we've done here, this bug is revealed (or perhaps our fix causes this bug, in a sense). I'm not sure; this code is hairy at best.
Updated•12 years ago

Flags: blocking1.9.1? → blocking1.9.1+
Priority:  → P2
Comment 13•12 years ago


This is only valid for mode == 3, so I really hope that's the only mode we use...
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #353092 
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review
Comment 14•12 years ago


Comment on attachment 353092 [details] [diff] [review] a fix >@@ 3132,17 +3132,17 @@ dtoa > if (ilim <= 0 && (mode == 3  mode == 5)) { > if (ilim < 0  cmp(b,S = multadd(S,5,0)) <= 0) { >+ if (ilim < 0  cmp(b,S = multadd(S,5,0)) < 0) { OK, I think this part is correct in terms of behavior it produces. The brain dump I attached is valid for mode 3 or mode 5, and those are the only cases in which we'll hit this code. Here's the analysis (with some modifications from the braindump to make it a bit more correct and readable): When called, dtoa takes the input double and rewrites it as a rational number with an integral numerator and denominator. The denominator is a power of 2, and is kept track of by just keeping track of the exponent. The numerator is kept track of in the Bigint called b. After this, several integers are computed: ilim: tells us where we're rounding to. It's set to ndigits + ceil(log10(d)) where ndigits is the integer passed to toFixed and d is the double involved. We only care about the case ilim == 0 if we're going to hit this code change, which means that we're rounding to right before the first decimal digit of d. j: Negative the power of 2 represented by the least significant 1 in the mantissa of d. k: floor(log10(d)). Now in the comparison above, after the multadd has happened, S is always a power of 5 times some power of 2. In fact, S = 5^{max(s5,0)+1} * 2^{max(s2,0)} If we label the b in that same line as b', then in terms of the original b we computed on entry to the function: b' = b * 5^{max(b5,0)} * 2^{max(b2,0)} where b is an integer relatively prime to 2. To get equality of these two integers, must have b a power of 5, with log5(b) + max(b5,0) = max(s5,0) + 1. Further, we must have max(s2,0) == max(b2,0). Now there's some manipulation of s2 and b2 before we produce the above formulas, but it consists of adding or subtracting the same integer from both for the most part. The place where they're really set for our purposes is between line 2818 and line 2835. Now we have 4 cases to consider: if (j >= 0 && k >= 0): b2 = 0 s2 = j + k b5 = 0 s5 = k So can only get equality if j = k = 0. Then b5 = s5, so to have equality we must have b == 5. Since j == 0, that means that the least significant bit of the mantissa was the 1s bit, which means the original double was 5. if (j >= 0 && k < 0): b2 = k s2 = j b5 = k s5 = 0 So can only get equality if j == k. Then j > 0. Since b5,s5 >= 0, we must have have b a power of 5, with log5(b) + b5 == s5 + 1. So b == 5^{k + 1}. But b is an integer, so this only works if k == 1, b == 1, j == 1. Thus d is some power of 2, and since j is negative the least significant bit of the mantissa and is 1, the only way we can hit this is if d == 0.5. if (j < 0 && k >= 0): b2 = j s2 = k b5 = 0 s5 = k So can only get equality if j == k. Then k > 0. Since b5,s5 >= 0, we must have b a power of 5, with log5(b) + b5 == s5 + 1. So b == 5^{k + 1}. Since the least significant bit of the mantissa had value 2^{j} == 2^{k}, the original double had the form 5^{k+1} * 2^k = 5*10^k. if (j < 0 && k < 0): b2 = j  k s2 = 0 Can't get b2 == s2, since b2 > 0, so no equality. This pretends that we never need to hit the max(0,b2) or max(0,s2), which I think is correct for the cases we care about (in that these quantities should never be negative, even after the adjustments that happen to them after they're set above). So in all the possible cases where we can get equality we're looking at 5*10^n for some value of n >= 1. In all cases, ilim == 0, so we're rounding to the digit before the 5, and should come out with 10^{n+1}. So we want to fall into the one_digit case. That said, in practice we don't hit this code for things like (5).toFixed(1) or (50).toFixed(2). And those are currently buggy and not fixed by this patch (hence the r, plus for the reasons below). To fix those, we need to make a similar adjustment in the "small integer" fast path on line 2993. Here the analysis is much simpler. Equality only holds if the passedin double is a 5 times a power of 10, and we're still rounding to the digit before the 5. So that compare should be a < instead of a <= as well. Which of course raises the question of why those are <= to start with. It looks like dtoa implements the "Round to nearest, ties to even" rounding algorithm for IEEE754 floats (though it only documents this for its strtod, not for its dtoa). For example, (6.5).toFixed(0) returns 6 in Gecko trunk, while (7.5).toFixed(0) returns 8. Given that, (0.5).toFixed(0) should be returning 0 to be consistent. It looks like ECMA262 toFixed requires rounding using the "Round to nearest, ties away from zero" IEEE754 algorithm, at least if I read it correctly, right? So we could fix this 5*10^n issue pretty easily with these two s/<=/</ changes, but we'd have the general problem of things ending in even digit then 5 not rounding correctly, no?
Assignee  
Comment 15•12 years ago


Thanks to bz for lots of help debugging. I'll ask Graydon for review next. This patch fixes the following cases. js> (5).toFixed(1) 10 js> (0.25).toFixed(1) 0.3 js> (0.5).toFixed() 1 js> (6.5).toFixed() 7
Attachment #353092 
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Assignee  
Updated•12 years ago

Flags: intestsuite?
Comment 16•12 years ago


Comment on attachment 355610 [details] [diff] [review] ECMA compatible dtoa.c fixes Flag these changes with /* MOZILLA CHANGE */ comments, and looks good.
Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
Comment 17•12 years ago


Oh, and perhaps report to the author that this should be how it works when that define that didn't help is set?
Assignee  
Comment 18•12 years ago


(In reply to comment #16) > (From update of attachment 355610 [details] [diff] [review]) > Flag these changes with /* MOZILLA CHANGE */ comments, and looks good. Unfortunately we already have lots of dtoa.c changes which don't contain flag markers like this. I'm not sure if adding a handful for this case is useful (might even be misleading).
Comment 19•12 years ago


Main thing is to try to get correctness fixes upstream. How has that gone in the recent past? I know nit and warning fixes don't fly, but correctness (by some spec or other, we may end up in spec wars) should. /be
Comment 20•12 years ago


Oh, if we have other changes already then don't worry about the marking. Brendan, I don't think there's a spec wars issue here that can't be solved with ifdefs. ;)
Assignee  
Comment 21•12 years ago


I will try again to communicate with dmg
Assignee  
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(graydon)
Comment 22•12 years ago


Comment on attachment 355610 [details] [diff] [review] ECMA compatible dtoa.c fixes I'm sorry, this is way beyond my ability to comprehend; I've tried reading the code for an hour now and can't make heads or tails of it. Way, way too much obscure state. Perhaps Igor knows it well enough to say?
Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(graydon)
Assignee  
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(igor)
Assignee  
Comment 23•12 years ago


Comment on attachment 355610 [details] [diff] [review] ECMA compatible dtoa.c fixes Looking for additional review because of the code's complexity and the fact that our tests in this area seem to be lacking.
Comment 24•12 years ago


I will try to review this over the weekend.
Assignee  
Comment 25•12 years ago


igor: Reviewping? Thanks.
Assignee  
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(igor) → review?(mrbkap)
Assignee  
Comment 26•12 years ago


Comment on attachment 355610 [details] [diff] [review] ECMA compatible dtoa.c fixes Should've moved review to mrbkap after we discussed on IRC, sorry. Please give this at least a few minutes of your time, mrbkap?
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #355610 
Flags: review?(mrbkap) → review+
Assignee  
Updated•12 years ago

Keywords: checkinneeded
Assignee  
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #355610 
Flags: approval1.9.1?
Comment 27•12 years ago


http://hg.mozilla.org/mozillacentral/rev/98fe21ddf417 http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.9.1/rev/6676024a697d
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Keywords: checkinneeded → fixed1.9.1
Resolution:  → FIXED
Summary: (0.5).toFixed(0) === 0 → (0.5).toFixed(0) is 0, should be 1
Target Milestone:  → mozilla1.9.2a1
Version: unspecified → 1.9.0 Branch
Updated•12 years ago

Attachment #355610 
Flags: approval1.9.1?
Assignee  
Comment 28•12 years ago


Thanks, Dao!
Comment 29•11 years ago


http://hg.mozilla.org/mozillacentral/rev/39080f7278b2
Flags: intestsuite?
Flags: intestsuite+
Flags: inlitmus
Comment 30•11 years ago


ecma_3/Number/15.7.4.52.js v 1.9.1, 1.9.2
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Keywords: fixed1.9.1 → verified1.9.1
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•