Issue 13454019: Fix bug in bignum implementation.

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 13454019: Fix bug in bignum implementation. (Closed)

Created:
7 years, 8 months ago by Yang

Modified:
7 years, 8 months ago

Reviewers:
floitsch, Michael Starzinger

CC:
v8-dev

Base URL:
https://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge

Visibility:
Public.

More Reviews

Description

Fix bug in bignum implementation. R=mstarzinger@chromium.org BUG= Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=14167

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : #

Created: 7 years, 8 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+8 lines, -1 line)			Patch
	M	src/bignum.cc	View	1	2 chunks	+8 lines, -1 line	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 5 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

Yang

On 2013/04/05 15:11:41, Yang wrote: Please take a look. I included a regression test in ...

7 years, 8 months ago (2013-04-08 09:28:42 UTC) #2

Michael Starzinger

LGTM. I like this second version much better than the first.

7 years, 8 months ago (2013-04-08 11:30:55 UTC) #3

Yang

Committed patchset #2 manually as r14167 (presubmit successful).

7 years, 8 months ago (2013-04-08 15:14:04 UTC) #4

floitsch

7 years, 8 months ago (2013-04-25 17:07:16 UTC) #5

Message was sent while issue was closed.

FYI: I just fixed this bug in the double-conversion library and investigated.

The SubtractTimes function is only called with values that have at most a
difference of one bigint. This means that the loop never executes more than
once. The spurious i++ therefore didn't have any effect.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages