I am sorry, you're right, please, disregrad. yours, anton.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM, William Hesse <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't this assert only added to the CallInterceptor case, not the > LoadInterceptor case? > These calls to CheckPrototypes don't use the save_at_depth parameter. > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> LGTM modulo restoring an ASSERT (see in comments). >> >> Thanks a lot for refactoring this---it's notably better than it was >> before. >> >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/12001/13001 >> File src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc (right): >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/12001/13001#newcode924 >> src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc:924: } >> Please, restore ASSERT added in >> http://codereview.chromium.org/2279005/show >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/12001/13002 >> File src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc (right): >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/diff/12001/13002#newcode956 >> src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:956: } >> ditto for ia32 and x64 >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/2251003/show >> >> -- >> v8-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev > > > > -- > William Hesse > Software Engineer > [email protected] > > Google Denmark ApS > Frederiksborggade 20B, 1 sal > 1360 København K > Denmark > CVR nr. 28 86 69 84 > > If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to > anyone else (it may contain confidential or privileged information), please > erase all copies of it, including all attachments, and please let the sender > know it went to the wrong person. Thanks. > > -- > v8-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
