Issue 9240005: Add number checks to the numeric operations in dartc.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Issue 9240005: Add number checks to the numeric operations in dartc. (Closed)

Created:
8 years, 11 months ago by kasperl

Modified:
8 years, 11 months ago

Reviewers:
mmendez, floitsch

CC:
reviews_dartlang.org

Base URL:
https://dart.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/dart

Visibility:
Public.

More Reviews

Description

Add number checks to the numeric operations in dartc. It makes sense to consider removing the NumberImplementation native operators -- or make them throw an error unconditionally -- because they should never be called unless the right hand side isn't a number. R=floitsch@google.com,mmendez@google.com BUG= TEST= Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=3358

Patch Set 1 #

Created: 8 years, 11 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

	Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Stats (+55 lines, -3 lines)			Patch
M	compiler/lib/implementation/number.dart	View	1 chunk	+6 lines, -0 lines	0 comments	Download
M	compiler/lib/implementation/number.js	View	3 chunks	+49 lines, -1 line	0 comments	Download
M	tests/co19/co19-compiler.status	View	1 chunk	+0 lines, -1 line	0 comments	Download
M	tests/corelib/corelib.status	View	1 chunk	+0 lines, -1 line	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

floitsch

LGTM. I agree: the operators should never be called unless there is an error. I ...

8 years, 11 months ago (2012-01-17 14:28:43 UTC) #2

mmendez

8 years, 11 months ago (2012-01-17 14:50:53 UTC) #3

On 2012/01/17 14:28:43, floitsch wrote:
> LGTM.
> I agree: the operators should never be called unless there is an error. I
would
> be ok with throwing unconditionally.

lgtm

Yes, getting rid of the duplicate checks makes sense.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages