LGTM.
https://codereview.chromium.org/236143002/diff/120001/src/objects-visiting.h
File src/objects-visiting.h (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/236143002/diff/120001/src/objects-visiting.h#newcode101
src/objects-visiting.h:101: V(JSMapIterator) \
On 2014/04/15 17:07:23, arv wrote:
On 2014/04/15 16:13:56, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> These definitions should not be needed, the two objects behave like
normal
> JSObjects and don't need any special casing in the visitor.
Done.
I'll have to re-add them when I expose the iterators to user code.
These visitor ids are the main reason I asked for a GC test case.
Because with the old version I reviewed (i.e. patch set #8 and #9) the
iterator objects got separate visitor ids assigned but none of the
visitors actually registered any callbacks for these ids. So although I
didn't try to run it, I was under the impression that e.g. the static
marking visitor would not have been able to handle those new visitor
ids. I am still pretty convinced that running the new test against patch
set #9 will crash, because it will dispatch to a non-registered
callback.
https://codereview.chromium.org/236143002/
--
--
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.
