Sounds good to me. I'll work on that. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> My top level feedback is the similar to Jakob's. > > I would prefer to see clearer separation of responsibility the the generate > code. The core element transition code should be generated separately (and > packaged separately in the C++ source) from the action that is taken after > the > transition. > > This separation was not clear before this CL (the core Generate method did > the > tail call on failure, but didn't do the actual store), and I think it would > be > good to clear it up as part of the refactor: one core routine that > generates the > code for the transition and only the transition, and two > callers of that code that add the action that needs to be take in the > success > and "failure" (GC) cases. > > > http://codereview.chromium.**org/8344045/<http://codereview.chromium.org/8344045/> > -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
