On 2012/04/17 13:54:26, Net147 wrote:
On 2012/04/17 13:44:56, Yang wrote:
> On 2012/04/09 07:36:46, Net147 wrote:
>
> Please explain why this is necessary. Is the implementation of pow in
MinGW-w64
> somehow faulty? It seems to me that you are just handling a few special
cases
> differently. Are you sure you caught all special cases where pow would
return
> the wrong result?
MinGW-w64 has a custom implementation of pow that behaves slightly
differently
to MinGW, MSVC and GCC on Linux in these special cases. I've handled all
the
cases that are tested in the V8 unit tests. With this change and previous
changes, all unit tests pass with MinGW/MinGW-w64 4.5.2 including
https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=1063.
I see. I think it's more important to make pow compliant with the ECMA
spec, so
it might be better to test against test262 as well. Also, there is one more
place where pow is used (Runtime_Math_pow in runtime.cc), which should be
fixed
as well?
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10026017/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
