argh, gibberish should read: but should not the fixed semantics... -- Vyacheslav Egorov
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Vyacheslav Egorov <[email protected]> wrote: > But it's should fixed semantics affect only cases when setter > _appears_ on the prototype and store site has a stub compiled for > assignment into holder? > > -- > Vyacheslav Egorov > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2012/07/04 13:44:34, Sven Panne 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? >> >> >> Well, all _our_ tests work fine with the flag turned on anyway. ;) The >> incompatibilities arose downstream, with V8 WebKit bindings relying on the >> previous incorrect semantics (or at least I saw plenty of breakage on our >> WebKit >> bots). I think Arv has confirmed that no breakage exists in Chromium >> anymore, so >> I will soon try again to remove the flag anyway. >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/10735003/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
