Bug 714260 moved all the low-level floating point bit-level algorithms into mfbt/FloatingPoint.h. At that time I thought I'd gotten enough reviews of the patch to land it. A couple few weeks later, tho, and paranoia's starting to set in. I'd like someone to do a last comparison of the algorithms defined there to what IEEE-754 says should be the case, specifically checking for consistency. I *do not* believe or expect there's a difference between what's implemented and what should be implemented. But given the JS engine's reliance on these low-level details for value representation, it's worth another look. Given that I don't think there's a problem here, I don't think it's critical this happen before the upcoming merge. But it should definitely happen comfortably before the merge after that, so that *if* something gets found, we can fix it in the then-aurora branch without having to mess with scheduling. jimb says he can do this after the 30th, early in the next cycle -- unless someone complains loudly, I think that's adequate timing given I doubt anything's actually wrong.
Created attachment 615820 [details] [diff] [review] Dummy patch on which to flag jimb -- see mfbt/FloatingPoint.h for the code to review
Assigning to Jeff for now since he's the only one who's touching it but if another viable bug owner comes alone, who's name isn't 'firstname.lastname@example.org', please reassign as needed.
Sorry, moving this over to jimb who's review is all that is needed here.
[Triage Comment] Merging of 14 to the beta channel is happening tomorrow. What's the current game plan for this issue? I'll remove tracking unless someone makes a case that this will be worked on in time to land in the first couple of beta builds.
5 years ago
Apparently Splinter is confused if there's no diff. As far as consistency goes, everything looks like it does what it says on the tin.
Good, good, that's what I expected. We're all set here then (including on all branches, since there's nothing to change).