Committed patchset #2 manually as r20603 (presubmit successful).
https://codereview.chromium.org/228643002/
--
--
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 u
LGTM
https://codereview.chromium.org/228643002/
--
--
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
Yes, it is worrisome that the test is so brittle - it has to trigger GC on
heap
number allocation. In fact, the test case only repros for x64, so we do not
have
full test coverage here. I did some sanity checks by simulating the GC
manually
(simply by jumping to the gc_cleanup label rather t
https://codereview.chromium.org/228643002/diff/1/src/arm/codegen-arm.cc
File src/arm/codegen-arm.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/228643002/diff/1/src/arm/codegen-arm.cc#newcode610
src/arm/codegen-arm.cc:610: __ mov(r0, Operand(Smi::FromInt(0)));
In allocation folding, we store the on
