My main concern here was that the comment above the check did not actually explain why the check is needed (e.g. which corner case stubs can't handle).
I have a strong feeling that the check is redundant (e.g. I expect stubs to match the semantics of runtime and correctly detect MISS caused by a mutation of objects in the chain from receiver to the holder) -- Vyacheslav Egorov On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012/07/04 13:18:17, rossberg wrote: >> >> Perhaps it isn't necessary, but this patch amends the fixes I made earlier >> and >> (had to) put behind that flag -- which, despite the flag's name, also >> fixed > > the >> >> treatment of inherited setters, except for the oversight here. > > > Hmmm, thinking about it a bit, I am not convinced anymore that we need the > test. > In addition to Slava's argument, all our tests + tests262 still work when > the > test is removed. It might actually be clearer when it is removed, but I > don't > have any strong feelings about it. Any opinions? > > http://codereview.chromium.org/10735003/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
