[v8-dev] Re: Prototype CL for faster DOM accessors. (issue 1292283005 by vogelh...@chromium.org)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc File src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode84 src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:84: RUNTIME_FUNCTION(Runtime_PtrLoadOffsetInt) { why not

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

AFAIK everyone is doing (1) currently, and so at least for now, which is kinda what we agreed on some time ago. I don't see why we have to change that now. I think (3) is essentially (2) with a different directory/base filename, and many people thought that (2) was bad, which AFAIR is why we are

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

One important bit tho: The (static) methods should be somewhere close the classes they relate to, otherwise we just go back to runtime-*.cc. On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote: > AFAIK everyone is doing (1) currently, and so at least for now, which is >

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

dumping everything in objects.cc? really? On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:39 PM Benedikt Meurer wrote: > One important bit tho: The (static) methods should be somewhere close the > classes they relate to, otherwise we just go back to runtime-*.cc. > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at

[v8-dev] Re: Always lazy compile arrow functions (issue 1317033005 by ad...@chromium.org)

On 2015/09/22 15:33:05, rossberg wrote: https://codereview.chromium.org/1317033005/diff/20001/src/preparser.h File src/preparser.h (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/1317033005/diff/20001/src/preparser.h#newcode3288 src/preparser.h:3288:

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Jakob Kummerow wrote: > As we have discussed at various occasions recently, we generally want to > move in the direction of having C++ implementations of spec-defined > behavior. Was that the conclusion of the discussion? My understanding

[v8-dev] Re: Always lazy compile arrow functions (issue 1317033005 by ad...@chromium.org)

This is not a sufficient fix, see attached bug for details. https://codereview.chromium.org/1317033005/ -- -- v8-dev mailing list v8-dev@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group. To

[v8-dev] Prototype CL for faster DOM accessors. (issue 1292283005 by vogelh...@chromium.org)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc File src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/1292283005/diff/1/src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc#newcode30 src/runtime/runtime-ptr.cc:30: return *reinterpret_cast(); just return

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

another vote for (3). On Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 12:02 Jochen Eisinger wrote: > I think (3) would be nice. There's also a bunch of code in api.cc and > execution.cc that could be moved there. > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:58 AM Jakob Kummerow > wrote: >

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

Some quick thoughts. Option (4) is a non-starter. Section numbers are not stable across spec releases. Option (3) doesn't sound bad, although it's not quite clear what the criteria for putting something into objects vs runtime vs the new dir would be. If we introduced a third category, not only

[v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

As we have discussed at various occasions recently, we generally want to move in the direction of having C++ implementations of spec-defined behavior. That raises the question of where this code should live. As an example of the kind of code we're talking about, consider

Re: [v8-dev] Code structure bikeshed: Where should spec reference implementations live?

I think (3) would be nice. There's also a bunch of code in api.cc and execution.cc that could be moved there. On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:58 AM Jakob Kummerow wrote: > As we have discussed at various occasions recently, we generally want to > move in the direction of