Thanks, Michael. I added comments and rebased.
https://codereview.chromium.org/117483002/diff/20001/src/heap.cc
File src/heap.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/117483002/diff/20001/src/heap.cc#newcode3311
src/heap.cc:3311:
On 2014/01/10 13:45:19, Michael Starzinger wrote:
nit: Only one empty new-line here.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/117483002/diff/20001/src/objects-visiting-inl.h
File src/objects-visiting-inl.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/117483002/diff/20001/src/objects-visiting-inl.h#newcode263
src/objects-visiting-inl.h:263:
heap->mark_compact_collector()->RecordRelocSlot(rinfo, object);
On 2014/01/10 13:45:19, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Side-note: A potential cleanup/optimization for later would be to only
records
slots to surviving objects here (i.e. move the RecordRelocSlot into
the
conditional) and instead record slots while we clear non-live
pointers.
But that is tricky business and we should give the code some breathing
time
before we tackle it.
Added TODO with this message.
https://codereview.chromium.org/117483002/diff/20001/src/objects-visiting-inl.h#newcode275
src/objects-visiting-inl.h:275: if
(!Code::IsWeakEmbeddedObject(rinfo->host()->kind(), cell)) {
On 2014/01/10 13:45:19, Michael Starzinger wrote:
As discussed offline: We do not record slots in code that point to
cells. That
is _only_ correct because we don't compact cell space. We should put a
comment
here explaining this, so that we remember once fragmentation of cell
space
becomes an issue.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/117483002/
--
--
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.
