How does it behave for Function.prototype.call invocations? Could you
extend the test cases to cover that as well?

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reviewers: Kasper Lund,
>
> Description:
> Fixed the step in handling for function.apply.
>
> The generic step-in mechanism floods the function called with break
> points to ensure a break is hit when entering the function. This generic
> mechanism was also used for function.apply. The code for function.apply
> contains a keyed load IC which was patched when stepping into
> function.apply. However function.apply enteres an internal frame not a
> JavaScript frame. This caused the logic for returning from the break in
> function.apply to fail as it forced a jump to the IC on the top
> JavaScript frame. The top JavaScript frame was the frame for the
> function calling function.apply not the frame for the apply function.
> Now returning from the break point in the keyed load IC in the apply
> code caused a jump to the code for the call IC for the function calling
> function.apply in the first place. Not a pretty sight.
>
> Step-in now handles function.apply as a separate case where the actual
> JavaScript function called through apply is flodded with breakpoints
> instead of the function.apply function.
>
> BUG=269
> [email protected]
>
> Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/63055
>
> SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/
>
> Affected files:
>  M     src/debug.cc
>  M     test/cctest/test-debug.cc
>  D     test/mjsunit/bugs/bug-269.js
>  M     test/mjsunit/mjsunit.status
>  A  +  test/mjsunit/regress/regress-269.js
>
>
>

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

Reply via email to