http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JDeclaredType.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JDeclaredType.java (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JDeclaredType.java#newcode248
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JDeclaredType.java:248: if
(getClass().desiredAssertionStatus()) {
Seems like you could have implemented your assertion in a separate
method (like you did for the static versionof JType.replaces()) and
then the resolve() method just turns into a single assertion and copying
two lists.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JGwtCreate.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JGwtCreate.java (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JGwtCreate.java#newcode58
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JGwtCreate.java:58: // TODO:
replace with BinaryName.toSourceName(type.getName())?
Not that it is functionally any different, but yes I think we should go
ahead and do it.  If we ever decide to fix the 'allow $ in java name'
consolidating references to a single method will help.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JNameOf.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JNameOf.java (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JNameOf.java#newcode52
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JNameOf.java:52: if (node
instanceof JType) {
again, a separate method to run 'replaces' might make this simpler.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JNameOf.java#newcode59
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JNameOf.java:59: assert false :
"Should not get here";
How about "Cannot resolve unexpected node type"

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/js/JsniMethodRef.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/js/JsniMethodRef.java
(right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/js/JsniMethodRef.java#newcode62
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/js/JsniMethodRef.java:62: assert
jsoType.getName().equals("com.google.gwt.core.client.JavaScriptObject");
shouldn't "com.google.gwt.core.client.JavaScriptObject" be a constant
somewhere?  It appears at least twice in this patch.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/CodeSplitter.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/CodeSplitter.java (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/CodeSplitter.java#newcode505
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/CodeSplitter.java:505:
JArrayType arrayType = program.getTypeArray(JPrimitiveType.INT);
Is this change related to code stitching?

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/GwtAstBuilder.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/GwtAstBuilder.java
(right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/GwtAstBuilder.java#newcode2761
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/GwtAstBuilder.java:2761: public
static boolean ENABLED =
System.getProperties().containsKey("x.gwt.astBuilder");
why prefix with 'x'?  Isn't an undocumented java system property obscure
enough for you? :-)

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode465
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:465: private
static final Set<String> MAGIC_METHOD_CALLS = new
LinkedHashSet<String>(Arrays.asList(
Is "Magic" really the right terminology?  I usually see these kinds of
methods called 'built-ins'

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode477
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:477: private
final Set<JDeclaredType> instantiated = new
IdentityHashSet<JDeclaredType>();
document 'instantiated'.  Too similar to 'seen' for casual reading.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode485
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:485: private
final Set<JNode> seen = new IdentityHashSet<JNode>();
document 'seen'.  Too similar to 'instantiated' for casual reading.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode497
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:497:
this.classFileMap = rpo.getCompilationState().getClassFileMap();
do you need to keep this as a separate field?  (you don't for
getClassFileMapBySource() )

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode504
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:504:
JDeclaredType type = program.getFromTypeMap(rootType);
Why not use "searchForType()" here?

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode522
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:522: for (JMethod
entryMethod : program.getEntryMethods()) {
Patched in your change and I can't find this method.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode722
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:722: // Queue up
visit / resolve on the body.
I assume to save stack - any other reason?

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode870
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:870:
flowInto((JMethod) node);
why not queue up with todo.add()?

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Reply via email to