https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/assembler.h
File src/assembler.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/assembler.h#newcode415
src/assembler.h:415: INLINE(Address constant_pool_entry_address());
On 2014/03/07 14:36:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
nit: Let's add an empty newline for readability after the declaration.
Done (also for target_address_address declaration below).
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/liveedit.cc
File src/liveedit.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/liveedit.cc#newcode1028
src/liveedit.cc:1028:
*reinterpret_cast<Address*>(target_address_pointer) =
substitution_entry;
On 2014/03/07 14:36:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Can we instead of the reinterpret cast use ...
Memory::Address_at(target_address_pointer) = substitution_entry;
Removed VisitCodeTarget(Address) as discussed, so no longer applicable.
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/mark-compact.cc
File src/mark-compact.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/mark-compact.cc#newcode2923
src/mark-compact.cc:2923:
*reinterpret_cast<Address*>(target_address_pointer) =
On 2014/03/07 14:36:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Instead of the reinterpret case, case we use ...
Memory::Address_at(target_address_pointer) =
Code::cast(target)->instruction_start();
Removed VisitCodeTarget(Address) as discussed, so no longer applicable.
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/objects.cc
File src/objects.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/objects.cc#newcode10262
src/objects.cc:10262: void ObjectVisitor::VisitCodeTargetCommon(Address
target_address) {
On 2014/03/07 14:36:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
IMHO, the logic in here is small enough so that we can inline into the
two
callers and get rid of the common helper. I think that's easier to
read.
Removed VisitCodeTarget(Address) as discussed, so no longer applicable.
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/objects.h
File src/objects.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/objects.h#newcode10702
src/objects.h:10702: virtual void VisitCodeTarget(Address
target_address_pointer);
On 2014/03/07 15:34:04, Michael Starzinger wrote:
On 2014/03/07 14:36:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> Can we rename this to method to make it explicit that it is a
constant cool
> entry. Maybe "VisitConstantPoolCodeTarget" or
"VisitCodeTargetInConstantPool"?
Actually, the more I think about it: Is there any semantic difference
between
the new method and the existing VisitCodeEntry()? Could we reuse that
instead?
IIUC they should always behave the same, right?
Yes you are right, this is much better - done.
As an aside, the CodeEntry/CodeTarget differentiation seems confusingly
named - I didn't realize that CodeEntry and CodeTarget effectively did
the same thing just from either and Address or RelocInfo pointer...
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/diff/1/src/objects.h#newcode10747
src/objects.h:10747: void VisitCodeTargetCommon(Address target_address);
On 2014/03/07 14:36:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
See comment in the .cc file.
Removed VisitCodeTarget(Address) as discussed, so no longer applicable.
https://codereview.chromium.org/179813005/
--
--
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/d/optout.
