https://codereview.chromium.org/1219063017/diff/140001/test/unittests/compiler/coalesced-live-ranges-unittest.cc
File test/unittests/compiler/coalesced-live-ranges-unittest.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1219063017/diff/140001/test/unittests/compiler/coalesced-live-ranges-unittest.cc#newcode64
test/unittests/compiler/coalesced-live-ranges-unittest.cc:64:
Conflicts(int number_of_conflicts, ...) : set_() {
On 2015/07/14 04:35:01, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Do we really need to use varargs here? You could apply the builder
pattern again
instead.
Agreed, and even easier, since the purpose was simplifying authoring
lists of range IDs, and it turned out I just needed 0 (no conflicts), 1,
or 2 conflicts, I removed the entire builder for this scenario.
In contrast, there's still a benefit for the builder for LiveRange
authoring, because the data structures (pairs) are more complex.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1219063017/diff/140001/test/unittests/compiler/coalesced-live-ranges-unittest.cc#newcode75
test/unittests/compiler/coalesced-live-ranges-unittest.cc:75: operator
LiveRangeIDs&() { return set_; }
On 2015/07/14 04:35:01, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Same here, there's no need for operator overloading.
Done.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1219063017/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
