On 2014/04/09 12:23:39, jarin wrote:
Thanks for the beautiful test case! As discussed in person, I have update
the
change with your test and changed the deoptimization from eager to soft.
On 2014/04/09 07:59:47, Yang wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/228883005/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regress-359491.js
> File test/mjsunit/regress/regress-359491.js (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/228883005/diff/1/test/mjsunit/regress/regress-359491.js#newcode28
> test/mjsunit/regress/regress-359491.js:28: f();
> function f(a, b, mode) {
> if (mode) {
> return a === b;
> } else {
> return a === b;
> }
> }
>
> // Gather type feedback for both branches.
> f("a", "b", 1);
> f("c", "d", 1);
> f("a", "b", 0);
> f("c", "d", 0);
>
> function g(mode) {
> var x = 1e10 | 0;
> f(x, x, mode);
> }
>
> // Gather type feedback for g, but only on one branch for f.
> g(1);
> g(1);
> %OptimizeFunctionOnNextCall(g);
> // Optimize g, which inlines f. Both branches in f will see the
constant.
> g(0);
lgtm.
https://codereview.chromium.org/228883005/
--
--
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.
