On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kasper Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The code is pretty nasty, but I see the point in your change. If > possible, you should try to use the ugly macros in even more places - We don't use the macros in Builtins::Setup because it is run before Top::Initialize so handles are not available. We don't use the macros in the regexp code because it has a strange way to report errors dictated by the API of jscre. We don't use the macros in factory.cc due to a GC-unsafe object on the stack (see comment). > > at least for consistency. Do we have good tests of the issue? Can you > create a regression test case for issue 70? > > I guess with a regression test case that shows that your code works, > I'm fine with the change. LGishTM. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Reviewers: Kasper Lund, > > > > Description: > > If an allocation is so huge that we cannot code the size needed in the > > failure > > object then we just return an out of memory failure object (instead of a > > retry > > after GC failure object). Not all places that checked for > > retry-after-GC were > > able to handle an immediate out of memory failure. > > > > This fixes http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=70 > > > > Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/6340 > > > > Affected files: > > M src/builtins.cc > > M src/factory.cc > > M src/handles.cc > > M src/heap-inl.h > > M src/jsregexp.cc > > M src/objects-inl.h > > M src/objects.h > > > > > > > -- Erik Corry, Software Engineer Google Denmark ApS. CVR nr. 28 86 69 84 c/o Philip & Partners, 7 Vognmagergade, P.O. Box 2227, DK-1018 Copenhagen K, Denmark. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
