Yes, this makes more sense.
I think, you can remove some duplication in code, if you store dependents
as an
object group on its own, with a flag. In this case, the code that need to
process both ordinary groups and dependent groups will remain the same, and
the
code that needs only ordinary groups can filter them by checking the flag.
Is this what you've meant by "I am not introducing structures for handles'
collection"?
On 2011/03/14 20:17:21, antonm wrote:
Sure, may you have another look?
I am not introducing structures for handles' collection (length, array and
your
info object) yet, let's reserve it for a separate CL.
On 2011/03/14 18:33:07, Mikhail Naganov (Chromium) wrote:
> On 2011/03/14 18:01:39, antonm wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > may you have a look?
> >
> > I am esp. uneasy about all those testing utils in liveobjects and
profiler.
>
> As we have discussed offline, tagging all objects (object + dependents)
with
a
> single RetainedObjectInfo (and thus, representing them as a single
group to
Heap
> profiler) is a wrong approach.
> More correct is to define 2 separate groups, and then specify an
unidirectional
> dependency between them. This way, they can be accurately rendered in
Heap
> profiler.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6686053/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
