http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/5 File src/jump-target-ia32.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/5#newcode106 Line 106: ASSERT(!cgen_->has_cc()); This looks like a duplicate line. http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/7 File src/jump-target.h (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/7#newcode127 Line 127: // become the current frame after the bind. Are we allowing non-mergable expected frames, which might be changed to be mergable or merged when bound, so that the frame after the binding site won't be exactly the expected frame? http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/7#newcode184 Line 184: // jump target shadows other one, which is hidden as the Not grammatical, confusing. http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/7#newcode199 Line 199: JumpTarget* other_target() const { return other_target_; } Could this be called "active" target? This is the JumpTarget passed to the constructor, which always seems to be the active one, or the one that is "seen". The ShadowTarget represents the hidden target while it is masked by another, and the target that was used to hide the original, after the hiding is over, right? http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/4 File src/virtual-frame-ia32.cc (left): http://codereview.chromium.org/18089/diff/1/4#oldcode321 Line 321: cgen_->SetFrame(this, &non_frame_registers); Can you put an assert in, that the frame is its cgen's current frame? http://codereview.chromium.org/18089 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
