On 2013/12/11 11:50:32, rossberg wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/110913004/diff/1/src/typing.cc
File src/typing.cc (left):
https://codereview.chromium.org/110913004/diff/1/src/typing.cc#oldcode53
src/typing.cc:53: if (visitor->HasStackOverflow()) return; \
Hm, is this really correct? It means that you do not bail out right away
after
detecting a stack overflow, but instead each iteration will continue
trucking
along until it either returns or performs the next attempt to do a
recursive
call.
If you view stack overflow as an exception-like condition, that isn't
quite
the
right behaviour, and it seems fishy. In particular, consecutive code could
happily try to call other auxiliary functions (with no stack check),
although
the stack space is already used up.
Maybe we should check before and after then. I saw a crasher that failed the
ASSERT that was there previously. I think it makes sense to do a check
before,
otherwise one could recurse down the first child all the way without
noticing
the overflow yet.
https://codereview.chromium.org/110913004/
--
--
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.
