util: fix negative 0 check in inspect #17507
Closed
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
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
util
refack
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2017
bnoordhuis
reviewed
Dec 6, 2017
lib/util.js
Outdated
| @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ function formatNumber(fn, value) { | |||
| // Format -0 as '-0'. A `value === -0` check won't distinguish 0 from -0. | |||
| // Using a division check is currently faster than `Object.is(value, -0)` | |||
| // as of V8 6.1. | |||
| if (1 / value === -Infinity) | |||
| if (value === 0 && 1 / value === -Infinity) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The performance concern is real (3x slower for Object.is) but does it really matter in this case? It feels like this might be a micro-optimization too far.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It got better recently but those changes may not be in 6.3 yet. And yeah, I don't think Object.is() is going to be the expensive part here.
apapirovski
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2017
lib/util.js
Outdated
| @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ function formatNumber(fn, value) { | |||
| // Format -0 as '-0'. A `value === -0` check won't distinguish 0 from -0. | |||
| // Using a division check is currently faster than `Object.is(value, -0)` | |||
| // as of V8 6.1. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comment should be adjusted if this is being changed to Object.is again.
apapirovski
reviewed
Dec 6, 2017
lib/util.js
Outdated
| // Using a division check is currently faster than `Object.is(value, -0)` | ||
| // as of V8 6.1. | ||
| // `Object.is` is faster as of 6.3, and this code doesn't | ||
| // need to be very performant anyway |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I was thinking something more along the lines of:
// Format -0 as '-0'. A `value === -0` check won't distinguish 0 from -0.
We don't really need to talk about the performance of it, IMHO.
bnoordhuis
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2017
cjihrig
approved these changes
Dec 7, 2017
XadillaX
approved these changes
Dec 7, 2017
lpinca
approved these changes
Dec 7, 2017
BridgeAR
requested changes
Dec 7, 2017
|
@BridgeAR would you mind reviewing this? It appears your feedback might've been addressed. Thank you! |
BridgeAR
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2017
addaleax
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2017
addaleax
added
the
author ready
refack
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2017
|
Landed in 86527bd |
apapirovski
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2017
PR-URL: #17507 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Khaidi Chu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2017
PR-URL: #17507 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Khaidi Chu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2017
PR-URL: #17507 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Khaidi Chu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Merged
addaleax
removed
the
author ready
|
Should this be backported to |
gibfahn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2017
PR-URL: #17507 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Khaidi Chu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Closed
gibfahn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2017
PR-URL: #17507 Reviewed-By: Refael Ackermann <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anatoli Papirovski <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Khaidi Chu <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Ruben Bridgewater <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Merged
4 tasks
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.
closes #17500
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
util