Makes sense to me.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Additionally, I pulled the code out of the constructor and into
> PopulateTable.  This better follows the style guide (only trivial work
> in a constructor), and due to ABI reasons for generating 2 constructors,
> this now saves a total of 57920 bytes on a final release shell.
>
> I find it makes more sense to have the types along with the definitions,
> since they aren't really part of the class, but more of a implementation
> detail of the function.  If you think that's crazy, let me know.
>
> On 2009/01/26 15:24:40, olehougaard wrote:
> > LGTM
> >
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/18761/diff/1/2
> > File src/serialize.cc (right):
> >
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/18761/diff/1/2#newcode499
> > Line 499: };
> > Consider moving this to class scope. I don't think we have any other
> types with
> > function scope.
> >
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/18761/diff/1/2#newcode501
> > Line 501: static const RefTableEntry ref_table[] = {
> > Same with static const tables.
> >
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/18761/diff/1/2#newcode575
> > Line 575:
> > Ditto.
>
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/18761
>
> >
>


-- 
-- 
Ole I Hougaard
Google Aarhus, Denmark
+45 8745 9215

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to