On 2012/04/17 14:02:51, Yang wrote:
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?
Runtime_Math_pow just calls power_double_double in assembler.cc which is
handled
already. How do I run test262?
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10026017/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
