http://codereview.chromium.org/27200/diff/16/1012 File src/codegen-ia32.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/27200/diff/16/1012#newcode2168 Line 2168: On 2009/02/26 14:09:06, William Hesse wrote: > Could you put a comment here, indicating the possible states of (1) fallthrough > links to and from the default clause > (2) fallthrough link to remaining cases, that are only reached by fallthrough > (3) next_test link to the default clause, as bound fallthrough or as linked > target. Not here but I've clarified some of the other comments. http://codereview.chromium.org/27200/diff/16/1012#newcode2174 Line 2174: VisitStatements(cases->at(index)->statements()); On 2009/02/26 14:09:06, William Hesse wrote: > Should you break on no frame here, or is VisitStatements guarded by a > sufficiently fast check for a valid frame? Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/27200/diff/16/1012#newcode2180 Line 2180: // The last clause compiled was unconditionally true. We still On 2009/02/26 14:09:06, William Hesse wrote: > The last test compiled? > Can't many fall-through clauses be compiled after this test? Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/27200 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
