Bug 159289

Summary: [JSC] Date.setYear() misses timeClip()
Product: WebKit Reporter: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin>
Component: New BugsAssignee: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: commit-queue, joepeck, keith_miller, mark.lam, msaboff, saam
Priority: P2    
Version: WebKit Nightly Build   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch none

Benjamin Poulain
Reported 2016-06-29 18:49:26 PDT
[JSC] Date.setYear() misses timeClip()
Attachments
Patch (4.77 KB, patch)
2016-06-29 18:51 PDT, Benjamin Poulain 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 1 2016-06-29 18:51:08 PDT
Created attachment 282405 [details] Patch
Geoffrey Garen
Comment 2 2016-06-30 09:48:39 PDT
Comment on attachment 282405 [details] Patch r=me
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 3 2016-06-30 10:17:04 PDT
Comment on attachment 282405 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 282405 Committed r202683: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/202683>
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 4 2016-06-30 10:17:08 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Joseph Pecoraro
Comment 5 2016-07-18 19:46:42 PDT
Comment on attachment 282405 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=282405&action=review > LayoutTests/js/date-timeClip-large-values-expected.txt:56 > +FAIL new Date(0).setYear(1.79769e+308).valueOf() should be NaN. Was -62135596800000. > +FAIL new Date(0).setYear(-1.79769e+308).valueOf() should be NaN. Was -62135596800000. These tests FAIL. Is that expected?
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 6 2016-07-18 19:47:58 PDT
(In reply to comment #5) > Comment on attachment 282405 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=282405&action=review > > > LayoutTests/js/date-timeClip-large-values-expected.txt:56 > > +FAIL new Date(0).setYear(1.79769e+308).valueOf() should be NaN. Was -62135596800000. > > +FAIL new Date(0).setYear(-1.79769e+308).valueOf() should be NaN. Was -62135596800000. > > These tests FAIL. Is that expected? Yep. It's part of a much bigger bug: GregorianDateTime cannot handle big values.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.