http://codereview.chromium.org/21410/diff/1/5 File src/log.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/21410/diff/1/5#newcode676 Line 676: code->instruction_size() + Code::kHeaderSize); On 2009/02/18 09:08:41, iposva wrote: > This would be much simpler if you used code->instruction_start() and > code->instruction_size() instead of doing the math here. In particular if ever > the Code object changes its internal layout your calculation here is off. > > This will also address Mikhail's comment. Initially I went for instruction_start for all code events. However code-move will report the object address, and we would have to do math there instead. Added a function for doing the calculation with an assert for checking the assumptions about the layout of the code object. One need to run profiling in a debug build to hit the assertion though. http://codereview.chromium.org/21410/diff/1/2 File tools/tickprocessor.py (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/21410/diff/1/2#newcode153 Line 153: # Falg indicating whether to ignore unaccounted ticks in the report On 2009/02/18 08:36:25, Mikhail Naganov wrote: > typo: Flag Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/21410 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
