In addition to what Maciej said you also have to ensure correct behaviour when
someone does something akin to:
function f() {
return g();
}
function g() {
return g.caller;
}
or
function g() {
return arguments.callee;
}
or
function g() {
return g.arguments;
}
etc
In the general case this would require being able to convert from inlined code
to a 'correct' call stack at some arbitrary point
--Oliver
On Sep 21, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Holger Freyther wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I might be completely wrong, my understanding of our JIT or JIT in general
> might be flawed as well. I have been reading some papers on SELF93s type based
> optimizations and related papers and started to wonder.
>
>> From my understanding our JIT is generating code on the method level (a whole
> method), did you ever consider inlining small functions? E.g. where the number
> of bytecode is < 2 * the size of an activation record?
>
> is that already done? was it tried? does it make sense?
>
> z.
> _______________________________________________
> squirrelfish-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/squirrelfish-dev
_______________________________________________
squirrelfish-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/squirrelfish-dev
