http://codereview.chromium.org/7839030/diff/2001/src/objects-inl.h File src/objects-inl.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/7839030/diff/2001/src/objects-inl.h#newcode2950 src/objects-inl.h:2950: kFullCodeFlagsHasDeoptimizationSupportShift) == 1; On 2011/09/13 07:51:51, Sven wrote:
On 2011/09/13 07:31:19, Søren Gjesse wrote: > On 2011/09/08 08:07:59, Sven wrote: > > Why do we need both a mask and a shift? A single bit mask/flag
(whatever you
> > call it) seems to be sufficient. Same for other places like this
below.
> > This pattern is used for all the other flags (at lease for class
Code), as
some > flags are more than one bit. However I changed the initialization of
the Mask
> values in objects.h to > > static const int kFullCodeFlagsHasDeoptimizationSupportMask = > 1 << kFullCodeFlagsHasDeoptimizationSupportShift; > static const int kFullCodeFlagsHasDebugBreakSlotsMask = > 1 << kFullCodeFlagsHasDebugBreakSlotsShift;
I think Kevin changed Code to use BitField for flags (http://codereview.chromium.org/7787028/), so we should probably
follow that
style.
I also noticed that after the rebase. This has now been changed. http://codereview.chromium.org/7839030/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
