Thinking a bit more about interceptors modifying the objects. I am not sure that should be allowed (meaning have well specified behaviour). For example, AFAIK we'll notice updates to the objects down the prototype chain, but not for objects up the prototype chain (and it'd be somewhat cumbersome to implement). What do you think?
yours, anton. On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Anton Muhin<[email protected]> wrote: > Guys, that's a preliminary to get your feedback. If you like overall > approach, I'd implement it for ARM and clean up now unused stuff w/ > lookup hints. > > And if Kasper has some spare cycles, maybe we could try evolve this CL > into one not using trampoline at all (or might postpone that for > later). > > yours, > anton. > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 7:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Reviewers: Mads Ager, Kasper Lund, >> >> Description: >> Store a lookup result when compiling interceptor ICs. >> >> That speeds things a bit. However, ideally we should compile the >> continuation. >> >> >> Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/140069 >> >> SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/ >> >> Affected files: >> M src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc >> M src/objects.h >> M src/property.h >> M src/stub-cache.h >> M src/stub-cache.cc >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
