On 2015/08/20 09:32:02, Michael Starzinger wrote:
LGTM. As discussed offline: I am fine with landing this as it is to
unblock
interpreter work. We should just keep the alternative ideas about context
chain
access in mind. This might mean that we'd potentially remove this
parameter
again if we decide to take an alternative approach.
As discussed offline, the current plan is to do context renaming to put
context
chain extensions into registers, but also maintain a current context in the
cp
register (or a stack slot on ia32) to avoid the need for an extra context
operand on operations which act on the current context.
I wrote some more details in the design doc at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11T2CRex9hXxoJwbYqVQ32yIPMh0uouUZLdyrtmMoL44/edit?pli=1#heading=h.wad4no4ny54w
https://codereview.chromium.org/1294133004/
--
--
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.
