https://codereview.chromium.org/54823002/diff/90001/src/ia32/assembler-ia32-inl.h
File src/ia32/assembler-ia32-inl.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/54823002/diff/90001/src/ia32/assembler-ia32-inl.h#newcode256
src/ia32/assembler-ia32-inl.h:256: Assembler::set_target_address_at(pc_,
pc_ + sizeof(int32_t));
On 2013/11/04 12:41:14, Erik Corry wrote:
Why add sizeof(int32_t) here?
Because our Intel assemblers subtract this, but it is not strictly
necessary, any constant offset would do. I just wanted to effectively
write zero at the relocation.
https://codereview.chromium.org/54823002/diff/90001/src/objects.h
File src/objects.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/54823002/diff/90001/src/objects.h#newcode5199
src/objects.h:5199: // Slightly ugly, used in ObjectSerializer only.
On 2013/11/04 12:41:14, Erik Corry wrote:
Rather than insulting your own code it would be more helpful to spend
a few
words explaining why it's needed.
Well, that would just be yet another general v8 comment: What we are
lacking here again is a clear distinction between raw data structure
manipulation and some semantics layered upon that. I just want the "raw
stuff" here.
Furthermore, from a more conceptual POV this doesn't really belong into
the Code class at all, it just lives here because we suffer from the
common OOP problem of the "tyranny of the hierarchy". Duplicating
READ_FIELD/WRITE_FIELD in the serializer would have been worse.
I am not sure how to put that into a non-insulting but enlightening
comment... :-)
https://codereview.chromium.org/54823002/
--
--
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.
