https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/diff/1/src/compiler/graph.h
File src/compiler/graph.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/diff/1/src/compiler/graph.h#newcode83
src/compiler/graph.h:83: bool is_typed() const { return is_typed_; }
On 2014/08/28 13:12:31, titzer wrote:
Gah, we went through this with the source positions. Please don't make
the graph
stateful. That's the whole point of the decorators.
Hm, well, the graph _is_ fundamentally stateful. This is just being
honest about it. :) I could remove the explication in this flag, but it
enables more assertions (which actually were quite helpful so far).
Maybe you can have IsDecoratedWith?
Then verification would check all the wrong thing when you happen to
remove a decorator. Is that desirable?
A more workable option would be to pass typedness as a flag to the
verifier. That's a version I had earlier, but it's more verbose, and as
mentioned, you loose some useful assertions.
But if you prefer, I can change it that way.
https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/diff/1/src/compiler/js-graph.cc
File src/compiler/js-graph.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/diff/1/src/compiler/js-graph.cc#newcode157
src/compiler/js-graph.cc:157: graph()->Decorate(*loc);
On 2014/08/28 13:12:31, titzer wrote:
Why are you explicitly calling Decorate all over the place now?
Because new decorators might have been added since the node got cached.
I thought about making these calls only if that was the case, but then
you somehow need to timestamp the last decorator list modification. It's
possible, but seems like a premature micro optimisation at this point.
Your call.
https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/diff/1/src/compiler/opcodes.h
File src/compiler/opcodes.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/diff/1/src/compiler/opcodes.h#newcode9
src/compiler/opcodes.h:9: #define INNER_CONTROL_OP_LIST(V) \
On 2014/08/28 13:12:31, titzer wrote:
I am not a fan of splitting up all the operators into tons of
different lists.
I know, me neither, really, but what (modular) alternative do you
suggest?
https://codereview.chromium.org/509343002/
--
--
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, send an email
to v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
