Author: sgje...@chromium.org
Date: Tue Apr 7 00:16:10 2009
New Revision: 1681
Modified:
branches/bleeding_edge/test/cctest/test-debug.cc
Log:
Apply Matt Hanselman's patch to fix issue 96.
Reviewed CL at http://codereview.chromium.org/42686.
BUG=96
Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.or
Reviewers: Kasper Lund,
Description:
Fixed the step in handling for function.apply.
The generic step-in mechanism floods the function called with break
points to ensure a break is hit when entering the function. This generic
mechanism was also used for function.apply. The code for function.apply
How does it behave for Function.prototype.call invocations? Could you
extend the test cases to cover that as well?
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM, wrote:
> Reviewers: Kasper Lund,
>
> Description:
> Fixed the step in handling for function.apply.
>
> The generic step-in mechanism floods the fun
Step in for function.call does not do anything (neither the right thing nor
crash) as the function.call code does not have any IC's. I was planning to
have the function.call fix as a separate CL.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:45, Kasper Lund wrote:
>
> How does it behave for Function.prototype.call i
LGTM.
http://codereview.chromium.org/63055
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Updates:
Status: WorkingAsIntended
Comment #8 on issue 7 by sgje...@chromium.org: scons problems
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=7
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or becau
Author: sgje...@chromium.org
Date: Tue Apr 7 05:11:43 2009
New Revision: 1684
Modified:
branches/bleeding_edge/src/debug.cc
branches/bleeding_edge/test/cctest/test-debug.cc
Log:
Fixed step in handling for function.call.
For function.call debug step in did not work as execution did not
LGTM.
http://codereview.chromium.org/63058/diff/1/3
File src/debug.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/63058/diff/1/3#newcode1163
Line 1163: if (function->shared()->code() ==
How about caching function->shared()->code() in a local variable? It
makes it a tiny bit easier to read.
http://
Author: sgje...@chromium.org
Date: Tue Apr 7 02:54:53 2009
New Revision: 1683
Added:
branches/bleeding_edge/test/mjsunit/regress/regress-269.js (props
changed)
- copied unchanged from r1682,
/branches/bleeding_edge/test/mjsunit/bugs/bug-269.js
Removed:
branches/bleeding_edge
Reviewers: Kasper Lund,
Description:
Fixed step in handling for function.call.
For function.call debug step in did not work as execution did not break
in the function called. This has now been fixed using the same means as
for function.apply in CL http://codereview.chromium.org/63055.
Please re
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #5 on issue 290 by sgje...@chromium.org: undefined clock_gettime
symbol in r1603 lib
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=290
This was fixed in bleeding_edge r1636, and is in V8 trunk version 1.1.4.
--
You received this message because you are li
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #1 on issue 269 by sgje...@chromium.org: Debugger crashes when
stepping into apply()
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=269
Fixed in r1683. See http://codereview.chromium.org/63055 for details.
--
You received this message because you are liste
Reviewers: Kasper Lund,
Description:
Fix profiling on Android.
Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/62102
SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/
Affected files:
M src/platform-linux.cc
Index: src/platform-linux.cc
===
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1/2
File src/platform-linux.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1/2#newcode565
Line 565: unsigned long arm_cpsr;
This looks fairly ARM specific. Shouldn't it be covered by more than
just a !__GLIBC__ clause?
http://codereview.chromium.
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1/2
File src/platform-linux.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1/2#newcode557
Line 557: // Android runs a fairly new Linux kernel, so signals are a
there,
signals are a there huh?
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102
--~--~-~
New version, now with makes a sense.
2009/4/7 :
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1/2
> File src/platform-linux.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1/2#newcode557
> Line 557: // Android runs a fairly new Linux kernel, so signals are a
> there,
> signals are a th
Reviewers: Kasper Lund,
Description:
Timeout of os.system() in d8 was timing out too soon.
Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/63062
SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/
Affected files:
M src/d8-posix.cc
Index: src/d8-posix.cc
===
Author: erik.co...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Apr 7 06:33:39 2009
New Revision: 1685
Modified:
branches/bleeding_edge/src/platform-linux.cc
Log:
Fix profiling on Android.
Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/62102
Modified: branches/bleeding_edge/src/platform-linux.cc
==
Reviewers: Erik Corry,
Description:
Remove the PCRE_STATIC define.
Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/62103
SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/
Affected files:
M SConstruct
M tools/visual_studio/common.vsprops
Index: tools/visual_stu
LGTM. Seems like an improvement, although I have to say that the code
seems slightly complicated.
http://codereview.chromium.org/63062
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~--~~~--
LGTM, but
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1003/6
File src/platform-linux.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102/diff/1003/6#newcode556
Line 556: #if !defined(__GLIBC__) && defined(__arm__)
How about __thumb__ ?
http://codereview.chromium.org/62102
--~--~-~--~~-
Dear all
this is the second day to try to chekout V8 on this detestable Solaris
system. Can anyone send the source code to my email address?
Thanks in advance
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~-
Author: sgje...@chromium.org
Date: Tue Apr 7 09:01:45 2009
New Revision: 1686
Modified:
branches/bleeding_edge/SConstruct
branches/bleeding_edge/tools/visual_studio/common.vsprops
Log:
Remove the PCRE_STATIC define.
tbr=erik.co...@gmail.com
Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/62
Comment #2 on issue 295 by polarjs: ARM port: Function debug info include
breaks at stubs though debug break code is not generated for it
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=295
Is there anything I can do to help with getting this issue fixed sooner? I
guess I'm volunteering some o
LGTM
http://codereview.chromium.org/62103
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Reviewers: Mads Ager,
Description:
Increase coverage testing of sparse arrays. Add a set
of tests to verify that the hole is preserved when shifting
and splicing.
Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/63100
SVN Base: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/
Affecte
Comments below, otherwise LGTM.
-Ivan
http://codereview.chromium.org/63100/diff/1/3
File test/mjsunit/array-shift.js (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/63100/diff/1/3#newcode29
Line 29: arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
The fact that the array indices and the values do not line up is rather
confus
Status: Accepted
Owner: ipo...@chromium.org
Labels: Type-Bug Priority-Medium
New issue 300 by asarg...@chromium.org: DeleteHiddenProperty dies when
called on an object that's never had any hidden values set
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=300
Here is some code to reproduce the pro
Status: New
Owner:
New issue 301 by ofsevensins: grab compiled bytecode
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=301
I'm really sorry to post it here. I would have felt much more posting on a
forum. Though none exist for v8(that i could find).
Is it possible to get the compiled byte co
Reviewers: iposva,
Description:
Fix v8::Object::DeleteHiddenValue to not bail when there are no hidden
properties.
Also make it return true even if there was nothing to delete, to match
the
behavior of v8::Object::Delete.
This is to fix http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=300
Please
Updates:
Owner: asarg...@chromium.org
Comment #1 on issue 300 by asarg...@chromium.org: DeleteHiddenProperty dies
when called on an object that's never had any hidden values set
http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=300
I just put up a codereview with a suggested fix for this:
One comment, otherwise LGTM!
Thanks,
-Ivan
http://codereview.chromium.org/58016/diff/1/2
File src/api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/58016/diff/1/2#newcode2085
Line 2085: if (js_object->IsUndefined()) {
This test seems redundant. hidden_props has to be !undefined to reach
here, a
32 matches
Mail list logo
