On 2014/05/08 08:59:20, rossberg wrote:
On 2014/05/07 16:42:13, Toon Verwaest wrote:
> Lg semantically, but andreas had some performance concern with
> %HasLocalProperty. I'll defer to him, given that I'm on holidays for the
next
2
> weeks and the tree is closed at least until friday for the branch.
Yes, Toon and I discussed this very issue the other day. IMO, the "right"
fix
would be to define GET_PRIVATE with %GetOwnProperty. However, this would
be
far
more expensive than the current definition, for all reads -- see
https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3320, which I just opened
yesterday. Since addressing the performance issue would be a bigger chunk
of
work, we decided to punt on it for the time being.
But as middle ground I think it would make sense to at least redefine
HAS_PRIVATE to use %HasLocalProperty. Then you can implement the correct
behaviour without violating the abstraction provided by the PRIVATE
macros.
I landed https://codereview.chromium.org/290373002/ so you can use
HAS_PRIVATE
now.
https://codereview.chromium.org/268363011/
--
--
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.
