https://codereview.chromium.org/749633002/diff/80001/src/compiler/ast-graph-builder.cc
File src/compiler/ast-graph-builder.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/749633002/diff/80001/src/compiler/ast-graph-builder.cc#newcode2016
src/compiler/ast-graph-builder.cc:2016: if
(variable->IsSignallingAssignmentToConst(op, strict_mode())) {
On 2014/11/25 16:25:02, rossberg wrote:
On 2014/11/25 15:51:01, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
> On 2014/11/25 15:23:36, rossberg wrote:
> > I'm not sure I like this factorisation, since it breaks the
symmetry with
the
> > other cases below and thereby makes the code less readable. It
also
duplicates
> > some of the cases analysis. Better factor it out into the two
relevant cases
> > below.
> >
> > Michi, what do you think?
>
> I'd prefer to share logic with the backends. Michi?
Well, sharing the logic would make sense if we did so consistently for
the rest
of this branching logic as well. But arbitrarily picking one case for
a remote
helper function is "spurious abstraction" -- which is harmful because
it
pretends there is something special going on when there isn't.
So unless you think there is benefit in also introducing
IsSignallingTheHoleAssignment, IsSilentlyIgnoredAssignment and
IsSilentlyIgnoredButSignallingTheHoleAssignment, you don't want to
introduce
this one. ;)
Yes I am quite sure there is a benefit in introducing all these.
Otherwise we repeat the same logic in more than 5 places!
I can do this in this CL or in subsequent CL.
https://codereview.chromium.org/749633002/
--
--
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.
