On 2015/04/09 01:38:02, caitp wrote:
On 2015/04/08 22:45:27, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
Try jobs failed on following builders:
linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/56527)
so, I'm not sure.
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/570001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
Try jobs failed on following builders:
linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/56759)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/550001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
On 2015/04/08 22:45:27, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
Try jobs failed on following builders:
linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/56527)
so, I'm not sure.
1) add lines to
Try jobs failed on following builders:
linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/56527)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/550001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
Branch has been made. Land this now, or rebase onto
https://codereview.chromium.org/1005393004/ ;-)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 2015/04/07 10:49:52, Jakob wrote:
Branch has been made. Land this now, or rebase onto
https://codereview.chromium.org/1005393004/ ;-)
Yup --- arv@ do you want to give it one last look over before checking in?
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
We need to make sure length and name of the %ThrowTypeError% function are
non
configurable and non writable.
I didn't see a test for that but maybe I just missed it?
The length property of a %ThrowTypeError% function has the attributes {
[[Writable]]: false, [[Enumerable]]: false,
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h
File src/contexts.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h#newcode594
src/contexts.h:594: : is_strict(language_mode) ||
!IsAccessorFunction(kind)
On 2015/04/07 17:00:11, arv wrote:
On
thanks for the look (I have some questions in here)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/builtins.cc
File src/builtins.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/builtins.cc#newcode1019
src/builtins.cc:1019: NewTypeError(strict_poison_pill,
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h
File src/contexts.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h#newcode594
src/contexts.h:594: : is_strict(language_mode) ||
!IsAccessorFunction(kind)
On 2015/04/07 16:29:57, caitp wrote:
On 2015/04/07 18:29:35, caitp wrote:
you know what, I think the spec is actually pretty clear on this. Such
own
properties also must not be created for function objects defined using an
ArrowFunction, **MethodDefinition**, GeneratorDeclaration,
GeneratorExpression,
ClassDeclaration, or
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h
File src/contexts.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h#newcode594
src/contexts.h:594: : is_strict(language_mode) ||
!IsAccessorFunction(kind)
On 2015/04/07 17:10:36, caitp wrote:
On 2015/04/07 18:22:03, arv wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h
File src/contexts.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/530001/src/contexts.h#newcode594
src/contexts.h:594: : is_strict(language_mode) |
| !IsAccessorFunction(kind)
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/550001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
On 2015/04/07 20:07:04, arv wrote:
LGTM
Consider adding the following before CQ'ing:
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_chromium_rel_ng;tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
to the CL description since it is likely that there are Blink tests that
needs
to be updated
thanks,
On 2015/04/07 18:31:15, arv wrote:
On 2015/04/07 18:29:35, caitp wrote:
you know what, I think the spec is actually pretty clear on this.
Such own
properties also must not be created for function objects defined using
an
ArrowFunction, **MethodDefinition**, GeneratorDeclaration,
LGTM
Consider adding the following before CQ'ing:
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_chromium_rel_ng;tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
to the CL description since it is likely that there are Blink tests that
needs
to be updated
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
Try jobs failed on following builders:
linux_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_rel_ng/builds/51608)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
On 2015/04/08 00:04:20, caitp wrote:
On 2015/04/08 00:02:11, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
Try jobs failed on following builders:
linux_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
On 2015/03/26 22:19:07, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/26 22:18:13, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/26 21:29:56, Jakob wrote:
On 2015/03/26 18:20:32, caitp wrote:
I'm not sure
the best approach to fixing the layout tests in blink when v8 rolls
This may be a reason to put this CL on ice until after
On 2015/03/27 09:16:54, Jakob wrote:
well, or it can go on ice for a bit, either way is fine
@jkummerow I'm seeing the same layout test behaviour with a build with
the
patch
reverted, looks like incorrect baselines or something (in a small % of
tests)...
so I think this one is pretty
well, or it can go on ice for a bit, either way is fine
@jkummerow I'm seeing the same layout test behaviour with a build with the
patch
reverted, looks like incorrect baselines or something (in a small % of
tests)...
so I think this one is pretty low-risk. That said, will wait anyways if
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc#newcode1273
src/factory.cc:1273: HandleMap map = use_empty_function_map
On 2015/03/26 12:46:43, arv wrote:
What does empty
LGTM
Andreas, can you take a look too?
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc#newcode1273
src/factory.cc:1273: HandleMap map = use_empty_function_map
What does
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc#newcode1273
src/factory.cc:1273: HandleMap map = use_empty_function_map
On 2015/03/26 13:00:17, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/26
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/430001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/450001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1027283004/470001
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
Try jobs failed on following builders:
v8_mac_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_mac_rel/builds/4408)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You
On 2015/03/26 18:17:15, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
Try jobs failed on following builders:
v8_win64_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win64_rel/builds/3331)
I guess this breaks webkit tests, and probably test262 too. I'm fixing the
Try jobs failed on following builders:
v8_win64_rel on tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win64_rel/builds/3331)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/factory.cc#newcode1286
src/factory.cc:1286: ? isolate()-strict_function_map()
On 2015/03/26 13:03:30, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/26 13:00:17,
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/370001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/370001/src/factory.cc#newcode1284
src/factory.cc:1284: // In strict mode, readonly strict map is only
available during bootstrap
I still find this
On 2015/03/26 21:29:56, Jakob wrote:
On 2015/03/26 18:20:32, caitp wrote:
I'm not sure
the best approach to fixing the layout tests in blink when v8 rolls
This may be a reason to put this CL on ice until after the branch (which
happens
end of next week). We have a bunch of important but
On 2015/03/26 18:20:32, caitp wrote:
I'm not sure
the best approach to fixing the layout tests in blink when v8 rolls
This may be a reason to put this CL on ice until after the branch (which
happens
end of next week). We have a bunch of important but risky stuff going in
until
then, and
Look mostly good
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/bootstrapper.cc
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/bootstrapper.cc#newcode360
src/bootstrapper.cc:360: static const bool kInstallConstructor = false;
Nit: I'm
lgtm
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
On 2015/03/26 14:08:46, caitp wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/370001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/370001/src/factory.cc#newcode1284
src/factory.cc:1284: // In strict mode, readonly strict map is only
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/contexts.h
File src/contexts.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/contexts.h#newcode179
src/contexts.h:179: V(GENERATOR_FUNCTION_MAP_INDEX, Map,
generator_function_map) \
On 2015/03/26
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/370001/src/factory.cc
File src/factory.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/370001/src/factory.cc#newcode1284
src/factory.cc:1284: // In strict mode, readonly strict map is only
available during bootstrap
On 2015/03/26
On 2015/03/26 15:06:45, rossberg wrote:
For symmetry and possibly future uses, I would prepare to keep these
separate.
Doh, s/prepare/prefer/
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/bootstrapper.cc
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/350001/src/bootstrapper.cc#newcode360
src/bootstrapper.cc:360: static const bool kInstallConstructor = false;
On 2015/03/26 15:06:45,
On 2015/03/26 15:44:21, rossberg wrote:
lgtm
Thanks -- I think will wait for Toon's CL to land before CQ-ing this, since
that's going to cause some bitrot
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
On 2015/03/25 13:58:09, caitp wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js#newcode50
On 2015/03/25 14:14:36, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 13:58:09, caitp wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js (right):
On 2015/03/25 14:18:45, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/25 14:14:36, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 13:58:09, caitp wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js#newcode50
test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js:50: var
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/src/bootstrapper.cc
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/src/bootstrapper.cc#newcode301
src/bootstrapper.cc:301: HandleMap
plain_function_map_writable_prototype_;
On 2015/03/25 13:36:47, arv
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/src/bootstrapper.cc
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/src/bootstrapper.cc#newcode301
src/bootstrapper.cc:301: HandleMap
plain_function_map_writable_prototype_;
Can you rename these. Right
On 2015/03/25 14:28:38, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 14:18:45, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/25 14:14:36, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 13:58:09, caitp wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
File test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
On 2015/03/25 15:01:20, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/25 14:28:38, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 14:18:45, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/25 14:14:36, arv wrote:
On 2015/03/25 13:58:09, caitp wrote:
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/diff/60001/test/mjsunit/es6/generators-runtime.js
On 2015/03/25 15:36:20, caitp wrote:
You know what though, it looks like the stuff for poisoning these
properties
in
strict functions was completely removed from the spec --- it only seems to
apply
to intrinsics, which I guess is any builtin function. So maybe a few
more
maps
can be
On 2015/03/25 22:50:21, caitp wrote:
H'okay --- here's a new variation, I've tried to go as close to my
understanding
of the draft as possible:
- No own caller or callee on strict functions or new syntactic
forms, at
all
- The intrinsic empty function has poison pills --- these get
H'okay --- here's a new variation, I've tried to go as close to my
understanding
of the draft as possible:
- No own caller or callee on strict functions or new syntactic forms,
at
all
- The intrinsic empty function has poison pills --- these get shadowed by
sloppy
function maps for the
On 2015/03/24 11:40:08, rossberg wrote:
On 2015/03/24 11:36:23, caitp wrote:
It may be possible to just reuse the strong mode variants, but that may
have
other implications
Yes, that won't be right. Those will specifically be marked strong in the
future, with implications on the object
On 2015/03/24 11:35:02, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/24 11:30:50, arv wrote:
It is not clear why we need 4 new maps? Can you list the different
cases of
functions and how their maps differ?
SLOPPY_FUNCTION_MAP and SLOPPY_FUNCTION_WITHOUT_PROTOTYPE_MAP install
caller/arguments accessors as own
I thought the idea was to remove arguments and caller from all
strict functions?
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:35 PM, caitpotte...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015/03/24 11:30:50, arv wrote:
It is not clear why we need 4 new maps? Can you list the different cases
of
functions and how their maps
Lets not reuse strong mode. Those might change for other reasons.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:36 PM, caitpotte...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015/03/24 11:35:02, caitp wrote:
On 2015/03/24 11:30:50, arv wrote:
It is not clear why we need 4 new maps? Can you list the different cases
of
functions
On 2015/03/24 11:36:23, caitp wrote:
It may be possible to just reuse the strong mode variants, but that may
have
other implications
Yes, that won't be right. Those will specifically be marked strong in the
future, with implications on the object semantics.
Such own properties also must not be created for function objects defined
using an ArrowFunction, MethodDefinition, GeneratorDeclaration,
GeneratorExpression,ClassDeclaration, or ClassExpression regardless of
whether the definition is contained in strict mode code.
My reading of this is,
On 2015/03/24 11:30:50, arv wrote:
It is not clear why we need 4 new maps? Can you list the different cases
of
functions and how their maps differ?
SLOPPY_FUNCTION_MAP and SLOPPY_FUNCTION_WITHOUT_PROTOTYPE_MAP install
caller/arguments accessors as own properties, which is forbidden. The
It is not clear why we need 4 new maps? Can you list the different cases of
functions and how their maps differ?
https://codereview.chromium.org/1027283004/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are
65 matches
Mail list logo
