https://codereview.chromium.org/14315005/diff/6001/src/store-buffer.cc
File src/store-buffer.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/14315005/diff/6001/src/store-buffer.cc#newcode261
src/store-buffer.cc:261: std::sort(old_start_, old_top_);
On 2013/04/23 07:27:13, danno wrote:
Although I think I convinced myself that this is safe without the
custom
CompareAddress function, wouldn't a safer change be to continue to
specify the
custom comparison routine to std::sort?
Not sure why this should be safer? Almost all of the complexity of
CompareAddresses is because it tries to classify the pointers into
smaller, equal, and larger.
However, for sorting, a strict ordering (a less than b) is enough, and
so we don't need to worry about converting pointers to integers and not
overflowing them
https://codereview.chromium.org/14315005/diff/6001/src/utils.h
File src/utils.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/14315005/diff/6001/src/utils.h#newcode456
src/utils.h:456: explicit RawComparer(int (*cmp)(const T*, const T*)) :
cmp(cmp) {}
On 2013/04/23 07:27:13, danno wrote:
can you use different names for the parameter and member variables
please?
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/14315005/
--
--
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.
