http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/11
File src/arm/fast-codegen-arm.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/11#newcode97
Line 97: ASSERT(loop_depth() == 0);
On 2009/11/03 14:10:13, fschneider wrote:
> Why this duplicate ASSERT? (also on ia32, x64)

We should not be in a loop before we compile the body, and we should not
be in a loop afterward either.

http://codereview.chromium.org/341081/diff/1/11#newcode830
Line 830: lit->mark_as_fast();
On 2009/11/03 13:57:47, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> 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)?

That's a good idea.  For now the check is pretty simple, so I'll leave
it out of the AST.

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_; }
On 2009/11/03 13:57:47, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> Why not just the standard accessor names?

>    void set_try_fast_codegen(bool try_fast_codegen)
>    bool is_try_fast_codegen()


I was being too cute.  I didn't see the need yet to change it back to
false since that's the default.  I'll just go with the standard accessor
names, as you suggest.

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();
On 2009/11/03 13:57:47, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> 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.

I thought about that, but it seemed too complicated for this.  I'll
leave it like this for now and reconsider when I do the other loops.

http://codereview.chromium.org/341081

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to