Moved to https://codereview.chromium.org/680993003
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/
--
--
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 fro
On 2014/10/27 13:23:28, arv wrote:
PTAL
ia32 looks good
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/
--
--
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 unsubsc
PTAL
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/
--
--
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 it
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/40001/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/40001/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc#newcode2446
src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc:2446: __
CallRuntime(Runtime::kDefineDataPro
[+v8-dev]
On Oct 20, 2014 11:45 PM, "Dmitry Lomov" wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2014 9:38 PM, "Erik Arvidsson" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Dmitry Lomov
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Erik Arvidsson
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't think an access check is
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc#newcode2446
src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc:2446: __
CallRuntime(Runtime::kSetProperty, 4);
On 2
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Dmitry Lomov wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>
>> I don't think an access check is needed. The function and prototype are
>> both new objects created by the class definition evaluation.
>>
> I see, you are right. This code is scary
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> I don't think an access check is needed. The function and prototype are
> both new objects created by the class definition evaluation.
>
I see, you are right. This code is scary though. I would like this
invariant (that the function and pro
I don't think an access check is needed. The function and prototype are
both new objects created by the class definition evaluation.
On Oct 18, 2014 5:05 AM, wrote:
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/ia32/
> full-codegen-ia32.cc
> File src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc#newcode2446
src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc:2446: __
CallRuntime(Runtime::kSetProperty, 4);
On 2
On a right track, shaping nicely.
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/full-codegen.cc
File src/full-codegen.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/639123009/diff/1/src/full-codegen.cc#newcode1571
src/full-codegen.cc:1571: EmitClassDefineProperties(lit);
nit: keep plugging
11 matches
Mail list logo
