Addressed comments. Thanks for the review. Landing.
https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/diff/1/src/mark-compact.cc File src/mark-compact.cc (left): https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/diff/1/src/mark-compact.cc#oldcode1377 src/mark-compact.cc:1377: On 2012/10/12 11:48:32, ulan wrote:
This line seems to be accidentally removed.
Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/diff/1/src/objects-visiting-inl.h File src/objects-visiting-inl.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/diff/1/src/objects-visiting-inl.h#newcode559 src/objects-visiting-inl.h:559: // Skip visiting kCodeOffset as it is treated weakly here. On 2012/10/12 11:48:32, ulan wrote:
Maybe add static asserts that kNameOffset + kPointerSize ==
kCodeOffset and
kCodeOffset + kPointerSize == kOptimizesCodeMapOffset?
Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/diff/1/src/objects-visiting-inl.h#newcode580 src/objects-visiting-inl.h:580: VisitCodeEntry(heap, object->address() + JSFunction::kCodeEntryOffset); As discussed offline, I also added the static assert here. https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/diff/1/src/objects-visiting-inl.h#newcode599 src/objects-visiting-inl.h:599: // Skip visiting kCodeEntryOffset as it is treated weakly here. On 2012/10/12 11:48:32, ulan wrote:
Maybe add static asserts as in the comment above?
Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/11028016/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
