Reviewers: jochen, epertoso,
https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc
File src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode30
src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:30: return
*reinterpret_cast<aligned_ptr_t*>(&value);
On 2015/09/25 08:22:53, epertoso wrote:
just return reinterpret_cast<aligned_ptr>(value).
Done.
For some reason, I was dead sure that you could only reinterpret_cast<>
between pointer types. Apparently not. :)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode35
src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:35: Object* object =
*reinterpret_cast<Object**>(&value);
On 2015/09/25 08:22:53, epertoso wrote:
As above, just reinterpret_cast<Object*>(value) is enough.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode55
src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:55: Object* object =
*reinterpret_cast<Object**>(&value);
On 2015/09/25 08:22:53, epertoso wrote:
And here too :).
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode64
src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:64: HandleScope scope(isolate);
On 2015/09/25 08:22:53, epertoso wrote:
I think is that these functions should be UNREACHABLE, i.e. they are
defined so
that turbofan can lower them.
Disagree. The reason why I want them (#ifdef-ed) in the code now -
despite the other parts not being in place - is that we can develop +
experiment properly, without having to patch the local client every
time.
Long term you are probably right; but for the time being UNREACHABLE()
strikes me as the wrong thing to to.
OTOH, their implementation can be helpful to verify the correctness of
the
function that's calling them. Should we have an #ifdef here?
Well... #ifdef V8_JS_ACCESSORS kinda does that. I think you mean to only
#ifdef the implementation of these runtime implementations; but there I
disagree, as above.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode84
src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:84:
RUNTIME_FUNCTION(Runtime_PtrLoadOffsetInt) {
On 2015/09/25 11:20:12, jochen wrote:
why not PtrTestIntAtOffset() or something?
Meanwhile, Enrico has done a good bit of work with this and he'll almost
certainly modify and extend these, once this CL is in. I'd prefer to let
him decide, depending on whether we really only need to mask bits, or
possibly do other things.
(An alternative would be for me to just drop this CL entirely, and let
him check in his version right away.)
Description:
Prototype for faster DOM accessors.
- This is somewhat experimental; hence protected by #ifdef.
- This depends logically on crrev.com/1367953002, although it's
technically independent.
[email protected], [email protected]
BUG=chromium:508898
LOG=N
Please review this at https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/
Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git@master
Affected files (+133, -1 lines):
M BUILD.gn
M src/runtime/runtime.h
A src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc
M tools/gyp/v8.gyp
--
--
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.
