[v8-users] Re: [blink-dev] Re: [v8-dev] Intent to ship: Private class fields

LGTM!! On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:20 PM 'Mathias Bynens' via blink-dev < blink-...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:58 PM Sathya Gunasekaran > wrote: > >> Contact Emails >> >> gsat...@chromium.org >> >> >> Spec >> >> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields >> >>

[v8-users] Re: [v8-dev] Intent to ship: Private class fields

LGTM On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:58 PM Sathya Gunasekaran wrote: > Contact Emails > > gsat...@chromium.org > > > Spec > > https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields > > > Summary (taken from our WebFu article > ) > > > > This

[v8-users] Re: Intent to ship: Intl.Locale

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:42 AM Adam Klein wrote: > LGTM to ship, one note inline > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:59 PM Frank Tang (譚永鋒) wrote: > >> Spec >> >> https://tc39.github.io/proposal-intl-locale/ >> >> Summary >> >> A Stage 3 proposal that introduces a new standard built-in property of

[v8-users] Re: Intent to ship: Intl.Locale

LGTM2 On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:59 PM Frank Tang (譚永鋒) wrote: > Spec > > https://tc39.github.io/proposal-intl-locale/ > > Summary > > A Stage 3 proposal that introduces a new standard built-in property of the > Intl object, which allows the following: > >- > >Parsing and manipulating

[v8-users] Intent to ship: Private class fields

Contact Emails gsat...@chromium.org Spec https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields Summary (taken from our WebFu article ) This private fields proposal provides encapsulation: If you're using an instance of a class, you

Re: [v8-users] Repeated module evaluation.

Modules are designed (in the JavaScript spec) to only have their top-level code run once. To "re-use" a cached module, the expectation is that other modules would use imports to access the exports of that module. In particular, in your code snippet, you'd return the already-evaluated module from

[v8-users] Re: Intent to ship: Intl.Locale

LGTM to ship, one note inline On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:59 PM Frank Tang (譚永鋒) wrote: > Spec > > https://tc39.github.io/proposal-intl-locale/ > > Summary > > A Stage 3 proposal that introduces a new standard built-in property of the > Intl object, which allows the following: > >- > >

Re: [v8-users] Error cross compiling V8 with is_component_build=true on ARM64

+Michael Achenbach On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:04 PM Darin Dimitrov wrote: > Yes, but there's no *libandroid_support.a* for ARM64. This file exists > only for ARM and x86 in the NDKs. Also as far as I know, API levels >= 21 > do not need this file anymore. > > Looking at this line here: >

[v8-users] Re: try/catch deoptimization

Yep, try/catch is supported by the optimizing compiler now. Use it to your heart's content :) On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 2:41:20 AM UTC+1, Peter Wong wrote: > > I'm fairly certain this no longer the case, and you stop avoiding > try/catch. https://github.com/tildeio/rsvp.js/pull/539

Re: [v8-users] Error cross compiling V8 with is_component_build=true on ARM64

Yes, but there's no *libandroid_support.a* for ARM64. This file exists only for ARM and x86 in the NDKs. Also as far as I know, API levels >= 21 do not need this file anymore. Looking at this line here:

Re: [v8-users] Behaviour of isolate->IdleNotificationDeadline()

Here is the patch: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/1478695 On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:21 AM Ulan Degenbaev wrote: > Hi Wilfried, > > Thanks for the report. The "do-nothing" case should occur limited number > of times and then switch to "done" [1]. > There seems to be a bug

Re: [v8-users] Behaviour of isolate->IdleNotificationDeadline()

Hi Wilfried, Thanks for the report. The "do-nothing" case should occur limited number of times and then switch to "done" [1]. There seems to be a bug that can lead to unbounded "do-nothing". I think the "do-nothing" case is no longer useful, so we can simply merge it with the "done" case. I'll

Re: [v8-users] Error cross compiling V8 with is_component_build=true on ARM64

You are building with target_os="android"; would you expect this to not need libandroid_support? On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:23 AM Darin Dimitrov wrote: > I am trying to cross compile V8 for ARM64 with *is_component_build=true* > for ARM64: > > gn gen outgn/release

[v8-users] Re: Different object files generated when cross compiling V8 7.3 for Android ARM (vs V8 7.2)

Turns out that V8 is building against a custom STL passing the _LIBCPP_ABI_UNSTABLE flag. So in order to build my final executable I had to use this same STL instead of the default libc++_static.a library provided by the NDK. On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 9:24:34 AM UTC+2, Darin Dimitrov

[v8-users] Error cross compiling V8 with is_component_build=true on ARM64

I am trying to cross compile V8 for ARM64 with *is_component_build=true* for ARM64: gn gen outgn/release --args="is_component_build=true is_debug=false symbol_level=0 target_cpu=\"arm64\" v8_target_cpu=\"arm64\" target_os=\"android\"" ninja -v -C outgn/release v8_libplatform And getting the