I deliberately made some asserts not as strict as they could be, assuming
that
we would introduce a second builtin to patch to. Since we are not going to
do
that anytime soon, I'll tighten the screws.
https://codereview.chromium.org/23608004/diff/1/src/deoptimizer.cc
File src/deoptimizer.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/23608004/diff/1/src/deoptimizer.cc#newcode2587
src/deoptimizer.cc:2587: if
(!interrupt_stub.FindCodeInCache(&interrupt_code, isolate)) return;
On 2013/08/28 12:32:55, titzer wrote:
Should this be an error?
yup. I'll turn that into an UNREACHABLE.
https://codereview.chromium.org/23608004/diff/1/src/deoptimizer.cc#newcode2630
src/deoptimizer.cc:2630: ASSERT_NE(NOT_PATCHED,
GetInterruptPatchState(isolate,
On 2013/08/28 12:32:55, titzer wrote:
ASSERT_EQ(PATCHED_FOR_OSR, ... ?
In this particular case, ASSERT_EQ(PATCHED_FOR_OSR, ...) is the same as
ASSERT_NE(NOT_PATCHED, ...), but in the case we introduce a new builtin,
the latter is better.
https://codereview.chromium.org/23608004/diff/1/src/deoptimizer.h
File src/deoptimizer.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/23608004/diff/1/src/deoptimizer.h#newcode265
src/deoptimizer.h:265: static void VerifyInterruptCode(Isolate* isolate,
On 2013/08/28 12:32:55, titzer wrote:
Maybe this should take a patch state to check against?
Again, this was with the assumption that we want to introduce a second
builtin to patch to. In that case, we would have a mixed patch state to
revert from.
https://codereview.chromium.org/23608004/
--
--
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.
