https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11528003/diff/2001/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.h File src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.h (right):
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11528003/diff/2001/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.h#newcode111 src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.h:111: void IterateCompiledFrame(const StandardFrame* frame, ObjectVisitor* v); There's not thing fishy about our class hierarchy. Stub frames are both CompiledFrames and StandardsFrames. OptimizedFrames are CompiledFrames and JavaScriptFrames. C++ makes expressing this painful, and the multiple inheritance ban means that it will always look funny. I have nothing against putting this method in StandardFrame with the "Compiled" name, I'll do that. On 2012/12/11 14:19:27, Sven Panne wrote:
On 2012/12/11 14:05:54, Jakob wrote: > On 2012/12/11 07:59:06, Sven Panne wrote: > > Shouldn't this be a method of StandardFrame? A naked top-level
function
always > > looks a bit suspicious in an OO world... > > > > Same for other platforms. > > Well, the name "IterateCompiledFrame" expresses the notion that this
is how
you > iterate over a compiled frame, not over a StandardFrame, so renaming
this to
> StandardFrame::Iterate would not be appropriate [...]
Well, that argument holds for the original signature as well: Using StandardFrame is basically lying. :-) There seems to be something
fishy in our
class hierarchy here, but I can live with a member function having a warning-like name. Nevertheless, this is not solving the root of the
problem... https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/11528003/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
