On 2015/02/27 23:20:44, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
On 2015/02/27 20:09:29, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
> On 2015/02/27 18:06:24, caitp wrote:
> > On 2015/02/27 14:00:12, caitp wrote:
> > > On 2015/02/27 11:24:25, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
> > > > The approach looks good to me. Can you send an
intent-to-implement? I
for
> > one
> > > > will be super happy to see this getting in!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Will do that today.
> > >
> > > BTW, do you have an opinion on the weirdness in the bootstrapper? It
seems
> > > really weird to me that initializing that
`InitializeExperimentalGlobal()`
> > runs
> > > after `InstallExperimentalNatives()`, since I need to install the
Reflect
> > global
> > > before putting things in it. Maybe there's a better approach for
that
> > >
> > > > On 2015/02/20 00:33:21, arv wrote:
> > > > > On 2015/02/19 23:10:32, caitp wrote:
> > > > > > On 2015/02/18 22:44:57, caitp wrote:
> > > > > > > Basic work on an implementation of Reflect.apply() (x64
only)
which
> > > shares
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > with FunctionApply.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Establishing this and ReflectConstruct should help simplify
the
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > of spreadcalls, so I'd love to get these in
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ReflectConstruct is proving to be a lot more difficult to
implement
:[
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah. We need to implement new.target too. We need to track
usage of
> > > > new.target
> > > > > and then use a different construct stub if that is present.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, ReflectConstruct is independent from new.target syntax
support.
> > > > All construct stubs are already ready to accept NewTarget
argument.
> > > > What you need to do is to implement an INLINE runtime function
(see
e.g.
> > > > DefaultConstructorSuperCall for inspiration) and in that function,
> generate
> > a
> > > > call to CallConstructStub (SUPER_CONSTRUCTOR_CALL variant).
> > > > Here is an example for that:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/v8/src/x64/full-codegen-x64.cc&rcl=1425002564&l=4121
> > >
> > > I'll take another look at ReflectConstruct today
> >
> > So the issue with ReflectConstruct right now, is passing the right
feedback
> > vector to CallConstructStub. I think this is sort of related to
> > https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3930. Is there any way
to
call
> > construct stubs without a type feedback vector? or better, use a
feedback
> vector
> > slot from the caller of ReflectConstruct
> You can just pass 'null'
s/null/undefined/ - sorry!
Added basic support for Reflect.construct --- doesn't seem to currently be
possible to test the new.target behaviour, though.
https://codereview.chromium.org/913073003/
--
--
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.
