http://codereview.chromium.org/14158/diff/5/205 File src/virtual-frame-ia32.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/14158/diff/5/205#newcode595 Line 595: SyncRange(stack_pointer_ + 1, i); On 2008/12/17 10:16:39, William Hesse wrote: > On 2008/12/17 09:50:12, Kevin Millikin wrote: > > I actually don't mind syncing zero-sized (or even negative) ranges since it > does > > the right thing. The simplest way to state the precondition for SyncElementAt > > is that everything between the stack pointer and the element (exclusive on > both > > ends) must be synced, even if that range includes no elements. > > > > However, if we change it here, we should probably change it everywhere. > > I don't understand why we need to change it other places than here. All that is > changing is the check if the range is empty. I know it does the right thing, > but I think it takes thought to understand why the limit on the test is > different than the limit of the range. I just meant that the test should be (i > stack_pointer + 1) everywhere, but I see that it already is at the only other current call site, so disregard. We should consider making SyncElementAt responsible for allocating the space and renaming the implementation (which assumes the space) to RawSyncElementAt. http://codereview.chromium.org/14158 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
