LibCrypto: Improve precision of BigFraction::to_double #3174
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
manuel-za
force-pushed
the
2639
branch
7 times, most recently
from
918decc to
8882a9c
Compare
|
Improves coverage for Temporal::Duration when running test262. Two 262 Temporal tests from @trflynn89's list still fail:
Out of the failing tests, 1 in 3, resp. 1 in 4 conditions fail. Maybe a rounding issue? I looked briefly at the I am reasonably confident in the solution:
...but hey, I've been wrong before 😃 @trflynn89: I could totally benefit from a second pair of eyes... |
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions! |
- Before: UnsignedBigInteger::shift_right( n ) trigger index verification error for n>31. An assumption of num_bits<UnsignedBigInteger::BITS_IN_WORD was being made - After: shift_right( n ) works correctly for n>31.
Before: - a separate Word element allocation of the underlying Vector<Word> was necessary for every new word in a multi-word shift - two additional temporary UnsignedBigInteger buffers were allocated and passed through, including in downstream calls (e.g. Multiplication) - an additional allocation and word shift for the carry - FIXME note seems to point to some of these issues After: - main change is in LibCrypto/BigInt/Algorithms/BitwiseOperations.cpp - one single allocation per call, using shift_left_by_n_words - only the input "number" and "output" need to be allocated by the caller - downstream calls are adapted not to allocate or pass temporary buffers - noticeable performance improvement when running TestBigInteger: from 41-42s (before) to 28-29s (after) on Intel Core i9 laptop NOTE: making this change in a separate commit than shift_right, even if it is in the same file BitwiseOperations.cpp since: - it is a "bonus" addition: not necessary for fixing the bug, but logically related to the shift_right code - it brings a chain of downstream interface modifications (7 files), unrelated to shift_right
Before: - FIXME: very naive implementation - was preventing passing some Temporal tests - https://github.com/tc39/test262 - https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/libjs-test262
These were likely cut-and-paste artifacts from UnsignedBigInteger::multiplied_by; not caught by the "unused-varible". NOTE: making this change in a separate commit than shift_left, since it is logically unrelated.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2639