hi Anton, Addressed comments. could you take another look.
Thanks.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6462029/diff/1/src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc
File src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/6462029/diff/1/src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc#newcode1245
src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc:1245: ASSERT(holder_reg.is(receiver) ||
holder_reg.is(scratch1));
On 2011/02/21 17:45:12, antonm wrote:
On 2011/02/21 10:25:35, Zaheer wrote:
> On 2011/02/17 16:13:44, antonm wrote:
> > do you waht to assert this or rather the fact that
> !holder_reg.is(scratch{2,3})?
> The holder_reg.is(scratch{2,3}) check already happens in
checkprototypes.
So why you bother asserting here? What kind of information this
assert conveys
to the reader? Sorry, I am probably missing something obvious here.
I added this as a sanity check on the return value. Judging from other
uses of CheckPrototypes it may not be required. removed.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6462029/diff/8001/src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc#newcode1247
src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc:1247: // Push AccessorInfo arguments and
property name below the
On 2011/02/21 17:45:12, antonm wrote:
won't it be more correct to phrase it like: build AccessorInfo::args_
list on
the stack and push property name below... ?
Done.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6462029/diff/8001/src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc#newcode1250
src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc:1250: __ mov(scratch2, sp);
On 2011/02/21 17:45:12, antonm wrote:
maybe: // scratch = AccessorInfo::args_ ?
Done.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6462029/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
