Hi, I've just found a problem in our generated code for handling optional parameters. Suppose we define a method with optional parameter in numeric type, like the following in IDL: Foo bar(in [Optional] long long start, in [Optional] long long end);
And we declare our C++ method as the following. Note that the default value of the 2nd parameter is not 0. PassRefPtr<Foo> bar(long long start = 0, long long end = std::numeric_limits<long long>::max()); If we call the JS method with only 1 parameter, everything works as expected. However, if we call the JS method with 2 parameters and pass 'undefined' as the 2nd parameter, we trigger the problem. By looking into the generated JSC code below, I found out that we are converting undefined JS value to 0 and pass it to the function. As the result, the default parameter value in the declaration is not respected. EncodedJSValue JSC_HOST_CALL jsFooPrototypeFunctionFoo(ExecState* exec) { JSValue thisValue = exec->hostThisValue(); if (!thisValue.inherits(&JSFoo::s_info)) return throwVMTypeError(exec); JSFoo* castedThis = static_cast<JSFoo*>(asObject(thisValue)); Foo* imp = static_cast<Foo*>(castedThis->impl()); int argsCount = exec->argumentCount(); if (argsCount <= 0) { JSC::JSValue result = toJS(exec, castedThis->globalObject(), WTF::getPtr(imp->bar())); return JSValue::encode(result); } long long start(static_cast<long long>(exec->argument(0).toInteger(exec))); if (exec->hadException()) return JSValue::encode(jsUndefined()); if (argsCount <= 1) { JSC::JSValue result = toJS(exec, castedThis->globalObject(), WTF::getPtr(imp->bar(start))); return JSValue::encode(result); } long long end(static_cast<long long>(exec->argument(1).toInteger(exec))); if (exec->hadException()) return JSValue::encode(jsUndefined()); JSC::JSValue result = toJS(exec, castedThis->globalObject(), WTF::getPtr(imp->bar(start, end))); return JSValue::encode(result); } One solution is to add the default value support in IDL. For example, we can change the above definition of bar to something like: Foo bar(in [Optional, DefaultValue=0] long long start, in [Optional, DefaultValue=2147483647] long long end); Or the other way is to add a bool parameter for each optional parameter in the class method declaration, that is used to indicate if the passing parameter is defined or not. This would involve the change to both code generator scripts and the existing implementations. How do you think? Personally I like the 1st approach since it is simpler. Thanks, Jian
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev