Bug 17458

Summary: Bug in 3d-cube SunSpider test (also in Jetstream2)
Product: WebKit Reporter: John Resig <jresig>
Component: Tools / TestsAssignee: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs>
Status: NEW    
Severity: Normal CC: brendan, gavin.sharp, mjs, oliver, saam, seth.gaurav
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Attachments:
Description Flags
3d-cube.js patch none

John Resig
Reported 2008-02-20 13:42:49 PST
There's a minor bug in the test which allows variables to leak into the global scope. Please see the attached patch.
Attachments
3d-cube.js patch (464 bytes, patch)
2008-02-20 13:43 PST, John Resig 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
John Resig
Comment 1 2008-02-20 13:43:31 PST
Created attachment 19238 [details] 3d-cube.js patch
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 2 2008-02-21 22:24:12 PST
Comment on attachment 19238 [details] 3d-cube.js patch I assume this was meant for review; marking as such.
Darin Adler
Comment 3 2008-03-02 18:43:56 PST
Comment on attachment 19238 [details] 3d-cube.js patch This change looks right to me. But Maciej should really be the one to review it.
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 4 2008-12-01 12:28:15 PST
Comment on attachment 19238 [details] 3d-cube.js patch This bug doesn't need to sit in the review queue. Maciej knows of the issue. Sitting in the review queue for the next 10 months isn't going to solve the issue. :) Maciej has noted reviewing this patch is blocked on other issues with sunspider distribution.
Maciej Stachowiak
Comment 5 2010-02-28 14:24:00 PST
This bug doesn't seem to affect the correctness of the result. Saving for SunSpider 2.0.
Maciej Stachowiak
Comment 6 2020-11-25 13:44:21 PST
Saam, can you take a look at this? Worth fixing for the next JS2 update?
Saam Barati
Comment 7 2020-11-30 16:01:12 PST
(In reply to Maciej Stachowiak from comment #6) > Saam, can you take a look at this? Worth fixing for the next JS2 update? I've noticed this before. And it's very possible we've done things to make this faster. It's not quite obvious to me what the purpose of that loop is in general, especially if we switch to using `new`, none of those objects will be pointed to by anything. A sufficiently smart compiler could omit those allocations.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.