LGTM. I left a comment about the future direction of GDBJIT but I am fine
with
landing this temporary fix.
As for having test coverage for GDBJIT, I couldn't agree more. I actually
aim to
enable it (i.e. compilation, not the runtime flag) by default. We should be
able
to enable it for standalone builds which would give us plenty of coverage.
See
https://codereview.chromium.org/18638002/ about that.
I'll land this.
https://codereview.chromium.org/13880031/diff/6001/src/mark-compact.cc
File src/mark-compact.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/13880031/diff/6001/src/mark-compact.cc#newcode3120
src/mark-compact.cc:3120: #ifdef ENABLE_GDB_JIT_INTERFACE
I am not particularly fond of plastering GDBJIT entry hooks throughout
the GC. In the long run this should be unified with the generic eventing
mechanism (v8.h:JitCodeEvent) so that each user of that mechanism
observes the same events. GDBJIT should hence hook into
Logger::IssueCodeMovedEvent and friends. But this is a larger cleanup
that we can follup-up upon and I am fine with landing this as a
temporary fix.
https://codereview.chromium.org/13880031/
--
--
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/groups/opt_out.
