the IS_VAR thing is handled everywhere automatically
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12095035/diff/1013/src/parser.cc
File src/parser.cc (right):
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12095035/diff/1013/src/parser.cc#newcode4625
src/parser.cc:4625: // %IS_VAR(x) evaluates to x if x is a variable,
On 2013/01/31 15:04:53, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Comment about IS_VAR needs adaptation as well.
This gets handled by the automatic replace
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12095035/diff/1013/src/parser.cc#newcode4654
src/parser.cc:4654: name = isolate()->factory()->NewSubString(name, 1,
name->length());
On 2013/01/31 15:04:53, Michael Starzinger wrote:
This essentially merge the "%foo" and "%_foo" namespace at the moment,
which is
probably not what we want. Instead the "%foo" namespace should be
checked
against a white-list of allowed API-instrinsics. That white-list is
empty for
now.
Also the AST node generated at the end of this function needs to know
the
distinction between API-intrinsics and runtime-intrinsics, because
otherwise
that distinction would be lost by the name mangling.
Yes, I was planning this for the patch that actually introduces the
public intrinsics.
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12095035/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
