On 2013/05/23 09:33:48, Yang wrote:
On 2013/05/23 08:05:08, Jakob wrote:
> Drive-by comment:
> Does this pass tests? I've stumbled over this oddity before, but had to
conclude
> that fixing it is a can of worms. See
> https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2047 for my findings.
It looks correct, but as Jakob said, there seem to be some tests that
rely on
this. Maybe the tests are slightly wrong. Please check whether that is the
case.
The fix does break code. All usages were about finding current break
position by
PC, but PC (as put by CPU on stack) always points to the next instruction,
not
the current one. So this weird semantics actually was "find the closest
break
location before PC, but not at PC". The PC may actually happen to point to
another break location, as it happens in tests.
I choose to fix the algorithm and fix usages ("pc" => "pc - 1"), as I have
uploaded.
Alternatively, I can keep all intact (with a strange semantics) and patch
my own
usage that I plan to submit ("pc" => "pc + 1").
https://codereview.chromium.org/15737023/
--
--
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.
