I see why you need to preserved ebx, sorry about that. Playing with
eliminating
some of the pushes and pops by freeing registers earlier still might make
sense.
http://codereview.chromium.org/669061/diff/1009/16
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/669061/diff/1009/16#newcode1465
src/bootstrapper.cc:1465: if (function_data->IsUndefined()) {
On 2010/03/09 10:39:12, antonm wrote:
On 2010/03/08 12:39:28, Mads Ager wrote:
> I wonder if this can have interesting side-effects?
>
> Using function template info for this new pointer means that this
function
will
> be seen as an API function (because the function_data field will be
different
> from undefined). We need to make sure that this is ok. Even if it
is ok I
> think it would be nice to find a less intrusive way to do this. It
is
confusing
> that function_data can be different from undefined for two very
different
> reasons now.
Mads, any recommendations are most appreciated. I put it into the
template for
the only reason---I didn't want to make all functions to pay
additional pointer
overhead. If you could recommend me some other place, that'd be cool.
You are definitely right that we should not waste a word extra for all
functions for this.
One, but somewhat nasty approach, might be to overload function_data
to hold
either API stuff or custom call generator, but that is somewhat
smelly.
It does smell, but I think it is better than the current approach
because with the current approach we cannot distinguish API functions
from functions that just have a custom call generator. If we change the
name of the field to something like template_info_or_call_generator and
add has_template_info and has_call_generator methods to test which one
is present (if any) it will not be so bad and we should be able to avoid
nasty side-effects.
http://codereview.chromium.org/669061
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
