I missed the scavenge change in heap.cc.
On 2010/09/24 11:43:40, Michail Naganov wrote:
On 2010/09/24 10:20:07, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> LGTM
>
> Will this only start profiling these functions after a full GC, or does
the
> processing of the events make it possible to trace the new function
backwards
to
> when it was created and process ticks from that point?
>
I hooked on scavenge, so full GC isn't required. You are right, some
samples
can
still miss a function on decoding, but this should not last for a long
time,
as
scavenges do happen frequently.
http://codereview.chromium.org/3417019/diff/6001/7001
File src/cpu-profiler.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/3417019/diff/6001/7001#newcode431
src/cpu-profiler.cc:431: // The same function can be reported several
times.
On 2010/09/24 10:20:07, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> Please add a comment here that this is called during mark-compact where
marking
> bits might still be set.
Done.
http://codereview.chromium.org/3417019/diff/6001/7004
File src/log.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/3417019/diff/6001/7004#newcode879
src/log.cc:879: msg.Append(',');
On 2010/09/24 10:20:07, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> I think a comment here on why we use unchecked_code would be helpful.
Done.
http://codereview.chromium.org/3417019/show
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
