On 2012/04/11 05:20:05, Yury Semikhatsky wrote:
http://codereview.chromium.org/10037004/diff/2001/src/profile-generator.cc
File src/profile-generator.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/10037004/diff/2001/src/profile-generator.cc#newcode3477
src/profile-generator.cc:3477: List<HeapEntry*>& nodes =
*(snapshot_->entries());
Consider extracting this loop in a separate method.
http://codereview.chromium.org/10037004/diff/2001/src/profile-generator.cc#newcode3621
src/profile-generator.cc:3621: writer_->AddString(JSON_O(
On 2012/04/10 22:28:09, Mikhail Naganov (Chromium) wrote:
> Is this object still the first item of 'nodes' array? This is
asymmetric to
the
> absence of such meta-information in 'edges' array. Perhaps, we should
reserve
> the first item of 'edges' for this data? This will also eliminate the
special
> case of the item 0. It is not necessary to split the meta-data in this
> changelist.
I'd rather put the array length at the first item in both cases. This way
we
can
preallocate array of required size from the very beginning.
I agree with Yury's opinion about dropping meta info from the list of nodes.
But I'm against the idea of using zero element for length.
I think it'd be better to put this into TakeSnapshot response as I did for
maxJSObjectId field.
http://codereview.chromium.org/10037004/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
