On 2015/08/31 21:52:21, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Some concerns. Also adding Jaro who might have an opinion about this.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1321543004/diff/20001/src/execution.h
File src/execution.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1321543004/diff/20001/src/execution.h#newcode212
src/execution.h:212: BreakInNonDebuggableFlag flag =
DontBreakInNonDebuggable);
Hmpf! I realize that Yang suggested this approach, but this gives me the
shivers. Now execution.h contains both debugger and futex semantics. I am
not
comfortable with this approach at all and would have actually preferred
your
first patch set over this.
Yang, do you still think this second patch set is cleaner?
Michael is right. The current solution is not ideal either. How about this:
instead of threading this through execution.cc, we could set a bool on the
Debug
object via a scope similar to IgnoreBreaks (I think thats how its called).
That
would contain the logic to the debugger and the futex code.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1321543004/
--
--
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.
