https://codereview.chromium.org/16509005/diff/11001/src/mark-compact.cc
File src/mark-compact.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/16509005/diff/11001/src/mark-compact.cc#newcode1005
src/mark-compact.cc:1005: ASSERT(!FLAG_age_code || code->GetAge() >=
Code::kSexagenarianCodeAge);
I don't think this assert is entirely correct, if there are two closures
enqueued as flushing candidates then the first one will already have
cleared the SharedFunctionInfo, the second one already has cleared code.
Sure, the LazyRecompileStub should always be marked, but still, this
assert seems mighty weird and confuses more than it helps. Asserts
should clarify the code an make it safer, not make it harder to
understand.
How about we move this assert outside the if, and rephrase is slightly
to a more general form ...
ASSERT(!FLAG_arg_code || !candidate->is_compiled() || code->GetAge() >=
3);
https://codereview.chromium.org/16509005/diff/11001/src/mark-compact.cc#newcode1047
src/mark-compact.cc:1047: ASSERT(!FLAG_age_code || code->GetAge() >=
Code::kSexagenarianCodeAge);
Likewise.
https://codereview.chromium.org/16509005/
--
--
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.
