LGTM. Of comments the only one I am feeling strongly for is a name for interceptor_holder, but even in this case I'd yield.
http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/1/2 File src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/1/2#newcode328 src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:328: void Compile() { given compile doesn't accept any parameters, maybe it's time to turn it inot a function? http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/1/2#newcode329 src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:329: ASSERT(holder_->HasNamedInterceptor()); I'd rather keep interceptor_holder name---I think it easier to distinguish between two holders---of interceptor and of cached property. http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/1/2#newcode338 src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:338: stub_compiler_->CheckPrototypes(object_, receiver_, holder_, maybe you could move this line into Compile* methods---it'd be easier to track register allocation. http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/1/2#newcode345 src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:345: lookup_->IsCacheable() && I think optimize variable is more readable than long condition, but YMMV. http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/show -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
