Patchset 8 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b004b1d821e28ffec8212a7cdf46b84cbdf74b67
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#26336}
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message
Committed patchset #8 (id:140001)
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/
--
--
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
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/873823003/140001
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscri
On 2015/01/28 18:19:30, adamk wrote:
On 2015/01/28 18:18:45, arv wrote:
> On 2015/01/28 17:57:26, adamk wrote:
> > Code looks good to me, but can you address my question up-thread about
> > compatibility before landing?
>
> Firefox removed their duplicate property check a while ago. They also
en
On 2015/01/28 18:18:45, arv wrote:
On 2015/01/28 17:57:26, adamk wrote:
> Code looks good to me, but can you address my question up-thread about
> compatibility before landing?
Firefox removed their duplicate property check a while ago. They also
enforce
that they do not have duplicate __pro
On 2015/01/28 17:57:26, adamk wrote:
Code looks good to me, but can you address my question up-thread about
compatibility before landing?
Firefox removed their duplicate property check a while ago. They also
enforce
that they do not have duplicate __proto__ properties.
I talked to MS and th
Code looks good to me, but can you address my question up-thread about
compatibility before landing?
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/
--
--
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
PTAL
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/diff/80001/src/preparser.h
File src/preparser.h (left):
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/diff/80001/src/preparser.h#oldcode3056
src/preparser.h:3056:
parser()->ReportMessage("strict_duplicate_property");
On 2015/01/27 20:05:48, adamk wrote
Looking good. Please update the CL description to match the new
implementation
(with two subclasses).
What's the state of duplicate property checking across engines? It's hard to
imagine actual code that depends on this behavior, but the number of test
changes involved does worry me a little bi
I didn't think of that. I think that might be cleaner.
On Jan 23, 2015 7:18 PM, wrote:
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/diff/60001/src/preparser.h
> File src/preparser.h (right):
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/diff/60001/src/
> preparser.h#newcode3003
> src/preparser.h
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/diff/60001/src/preparser.h
File src/preparser.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/diff/60001/src/preparser.h#newcode3003
src/preparser.h:3003: if (in_class_) {
Did you consider having two separate checkers, one for classes and one
for ob
PTAL
Now that duplicate __proto__ is a syntax error it allows some
simplifications in
the codegen.
https://codereview.chromium.org/873823003/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
12 matches
Mail list logo
