https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/diff/20001/src/spaces.cc
File src/spaces.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/diff/20001/src/spaces.cc#newcode2613
src/spaces.cc:2613: if (object != NULL) return object;
On 2014/04/25 07:57:14, Michael Starzinger wrote:
As discussed offline: We should stick with the old allocation strategy
for now.
Moving from lazy sweeping to concurrent sweeping still doesn't
guarantee that
there is one contiguous chunk large enough to hold a "size_in_bytes"
object.
Let's bring the old strategy back.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/diff/20001/src/spaces.cc#newcode2628
src/spaces.cc:2628:
On 2014/04/25 07:57:14, Michael Starzinger wrote:
As discussed offline: Likewise for the last-ditch attempt.
Done. The last ditch is different now, it will wait for the sweeper
threads.
https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-heap.cc
File test/cctest/test-heap.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-heap.cc#newcode1618
test/cctest/test-heap.cc:1618: // subsequent GC runs.
On 2014/04/25 07:57:14, Michael Starzinger wrote:
nit: Indentation is off.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/diff/20001/test/cctest/test-heap.cc#newcode1636
test/cctest/test-heap.cc:1636: if
(collector->IsConcurrentSweepingInProgress()) {
On 2014/04/25 07:57:14, Michael Starzinger wrote:
Can we preserve a comment along the lines of "Waiting for concurrent
sweeper
threads should no change heap size." here?
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/254603002/
--
--
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.
