Ok upon some deliberation, I decided that it is too early to land this
patch.
1. This patch does not have any support for methods other than constructors
being invoked on uninitialized objects.
2. We do not expose @@construct on JS objects anyway yet, so this patch
solves a
problem that does not exists
3 Once we do expose @@construct, we need to think carefully what the design
would be (a strawman per Andreas's suggestion all un-initialized objects
sstart
with the same instance type [say JS_BLUEPRINT] that transitions to correct
instance type after a call to constructor)
Thanks to Erik's change in
https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=16006,
we in a nice future-proof state now, which will let us move forward once we
start implementing subclassing support in earnest.
On 2013/08/05 13:34:33, arv wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/21924007/diff/3001/src/collection.js
File src/collection.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/21924007/diff/3001/src/collection.js#newcode52
src/collection.js:52: if (!IS_SET(this)) {
On 2013/08/05 10:15:22, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
> On 2013/08/04 16:44:28, arv wrote:
> > Remember that all of these needs to be changed to actually test that
it is
an
> > initialized Set and not just a Set.
> >
> > var uninitializedSet = %NewObject(Set);
> > assertThrows(function() {
> > Set.prototype.add.call(uninitializedSet, 'key');
> > }, TypeError);
> >
> > At this point, the only way to get an uninitialized Set is to use
%NewObject
> so
> > and user code will not be able to trigger this. But once we expose
@@create
> this
> > will need to be fixed.
>
> Do you think we should fix all of these in this CL or we can do other
error
> checking in later CLs? (this whole @@create thing is a can of worms,
obviously)
I think it is fine to do this later. It is not observable
without %NewObject
https://codereview.chromium.org/21924007/diff/3001/src/runtime.cc
File src/runtime.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/21924007/diff/3001/src/runtime.cc#newcode914
src/runtime.cc:914: ArrayIdToTypeAndSize(arrayId, &array_type,
&element_size,
&name);
On 2013/08/05 10:15:22, Dmitry Lomov (chromium) wrote:
> On 2013/08/04 16:44:28, arv wrote:
> > Can you move this code into the error cases? The common case is that
there
is
> no
> > error and we can skip all this extra work just to get the name that
we are
not
> > going to use.
>
> Done. Do you think it's cleaner that way? (Perf impact is non-existent
of
> course)
>
Sorry, I think my comment was bad advice. I didn't realize that this work
needs
to be done in the common case anyway. Adding the name will be lost in the
noise.
I didn't realize how much work is done on initialization anyway.
I'll let you determine which way you prefer. The old way is definitely
cleaner.
https://codereview.chromium.org/21924007/
--
--
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.
