https://codereview.chromium.org/424973004/diff/120001/test/cctest/test-cpu-profiler.cc
File test/cctest/test-cpu-profiler.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/424973004/diff/120001/test/cctest/test-cpu-profiler.cc#newcode1134
test/cctest/test-cpu-profiler.cc:1134: CHECK_NE(NULL, line_info);
On 2014/08/15 12:10:47, alph wrote:
I've got the test failing at this line for ia32 target because there's
no
POSITION reloc infos for the code.
Well, I found out what causes this test failure but I don't understand a
reason of this behavior and I am not sure what the best way to fix it
is:
In patch set 3, I iterate the heap to get a function object
(GetFunctionInfoFromHeap). The test passes all the time.
In patch set 4, I replace it with the lines below as you suggested (see
a code snippet below) and test failed.
i::Handle<i::JSFunction> func = v8::Utils::OpenHandle(
*v8::Local<v8::Function>::Cast(
(*env)->Global()->Get(v8_str(func_name))));
Looking into it, I decided to check what the difference between these
two ways:
1. I added heap iteration back in addition to v8::Utils::OpenHandle
2. Then checked that reloc info for both objects of Code type include
positions.
The test looks like:
CompileRun(script.start());
i::SharedFunctionInfo* shared = GetFunctionInfoFromHeap(isolate,
func_name);
int positions_ = 0;
for (i::RelocIterator it(shared->code()); !it.done(); it.next()) {
i::RelocInfo::Mode mode = it.rinfo()->rmode();
if (i::RelocInfo::IsPosition(mode)) positions_++;
}
CHECK_GT(positions_, 0); // THIS CHECK PASSED
i::Handle<i::JSFunction> func = v8::Utils::OpenHandle(
*v8::Local<v8::Function>::Cast(
(*env)->Global()->Get(v8_str(func_name))));
CHECK_NE(NULL, func->shared());
CHECK_NE(NULL, func->code());
int positions = 0;
for (i::RelocIterator it(func->code()); !it.done(); it.next()) {
i::RelocInfo::Mode mode = it.rinfo()->rmode();
if (i::RelocInfo::IsPosition(mode)) positions++;
}
CHECK_GT(positions, 0); // THIS CHECK DOES NOT PASS.
Do you have idea why for the first case I have POSITION reloc info, and
never have it for the second case?
It seems it's Linux specific issue. At least I don't see it on Windows.
https://codereview.chromium.org/424973004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
