On 2014/10/30 16:15:26, Igor Sheludko wrote:
On 2014/10/28 17:31:18, mckev wrote:
> Thanks for relanding this patch!
>
> On 2014/10/27 14:19:43, Igor Sheludko wrote:
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/676393002/diff/20001/src/transitions.cc
> > File src/transitions.cc (right):
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/676393002/diff/20001/src/transitions.cc#newcode156
> > src/transitions.cc:156: if (insertion_index != kNotFound) {
> > Without this piece we could end up having duplicate entries for the
same
name.
>
> Just out of curiosity, when does this occur? If we already have the
key,
> I thought we could just replace that entry in the existing array.
>
> Two other questions / comments (for clarification):
>
> 1) How do we end up with
> `new_nof <= map->transitions()->number_of_transitions_storage()` being
false
but
> `insertion_index != kNotFound` is true?
>
> 2) One concern might be that we're trimming the transitions array
without
> updating
> `number_of_transitions` somewhere, which would cause
`number_of_transitions`
to
> be erroneously greater than `number_of_transitions_storage`.
1) Yes, indeed. I'm sorry.
2) Yes, but it's not clear so far where it actually happens.
I just realized that the number_of_elements() of broken arrays were bigger
than
TransitionArray::kMaxNumberOfTransitions.
https://codereview.chromium.org/676393002/
--
--
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.
