LGTM
http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/11 File src/arm/fast-codegen-arm.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/11#newcode830 Line 830: lit->mark_as_fast(); As this logic is duplicated in all three code generators how about moving it to the FunctionLiteral passing the current loop_depth (or the FastCodeGenerator/CodeGenerator object)? http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/4 File src/ast.h (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/4#newcode1350 Line 1350: bool is_marked_as_fast() { return try_fast_codegen_; } Why not just the standard accessor names? void set_try_fast_codegen(bool try_fast_codegen) bool is_try_fast_codegen() http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/9 File src/fast-codegen.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/9#newcode359 Line 359: increment_loop_depth(); How placing the increment_loop_depth()/decrement_loop_depth() in a stack allocated class to ensure they are paired. Maybe the other ASSERT in codegen will catch this anyway. http://codereview.chromium.org/341081 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
