- 01 May, 2019 1 commit
-
-
Sathya Gunasekaran authored
Bug: v8:5367, v8:5368 Change-Id: I86f25f9f658e21a05604f3014e6ebf74f1a8a1f7 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/1590164Reviewed-by:
Mathias Bynens <mathias@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#61139}
-
- 11 Mar, 2019 1 commit
-
-
Mythri authored
This is a pre-work for allocating feedback vectors lazily. Feedback cells are required to share the feedback vectors across the different closures of the same function. Currently, they are held in the CreateClosureSlot in the feedback vector. With lazy feedback vector allocation, we may not have a feedback vector. However, we still need a place to store the feedback cells, so if feedback vector is allocated in future it can still be shared across closures. Here is the detailed design doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m2PTNChrlJqw9MiwK_xEJfqbFHAgEHmgGqmIN49PaBY/edit BUG=v8:8394 Change-Id: Ib406d862b2809b1293bfecdcfcf8dea3127cb1c7 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/1503753 Commit-Queue: Mythri Alle <mythria@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Toon Verwaest <verwaest@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Ross McIlroy <rmcilroy@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Ulan Degenbaev <ulan@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Benedikt Meurer <bmeurer@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#60147}
-
- 31 Jan, 2019 1 commit
-
-
Camillo Bruni authored
Drive-by-fix: - Inline Scope::num_parameters - Provide inlineable DataGatheringScope destructor precheck Change-Id: I337a79e0d5cf0f26c526e2ac53de8aa632d86c53 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1445879 Commit-Queue: Camillo Bruni <cbruni@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Toon Verwaest <verwaest@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#59253}
-
- 17 Sep, 2018 1 commit
-
-
Sathya Gunasekaran authored
Add tests. Bug: v8:5367 Cq-Include-Trybots: luci.chromium.try:linux_chromium_headless_rel;master.tryserver.blink:linux_trusty_blink_rel Change-Id: I2a4215a87ba1dae98c4b25547494165f534b4a66 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1218046 Commit-Queue: Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Aleksey Kozyatinskiy <kozyatinskiy@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Mythri Alle <mythria@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#55974}
-
- 03 May, 2018 1 commit
-
-
Toon Verwaest authored
There are likely cleanups that can be done after this CL: - context-related functions in the interpreter and compiler take ScopeInfo as well as ScopeType and slot-count as input. The latter 2 should be directly derived from the former. We should be able to drop FunctionContextParameters. - ContextExtension is probably not needed anymore, since we now always have the correct scope_info directly in the SCOPE_INFO_INDEX slot. Bug: v8:7066 Cq-Include-Trybots: luci.chromium.try:linux_chromium_rel_ng;master.tryserver.blink:linux_trusty_blink_rel Change-Id: Ie1f6134c686a9f2183e54730d9cdd598a9e5ab67 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/785151 Commit-Queue: Toon Verwaest <verwaest@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Hannes Payer <hpayer@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Ross McIlroy <rmcilroy@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Michael Starzinger <mstarzinger@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#52952}
-
- 18 Apr, 2018 1 commit
-
-
Christian O. Andersson authored
There are various situations where we explicitly compare a SMI against another SMI (e.g., BuildIndexedJump). This is also a common pattern for generated code (e.g., comparing a loop variable with an integer). Instead of using the generic equality/strict-equality stub for this, which is expensive, this CL offers a simple comparison stub, repurposing the TestEqualStrictNoFeedback bytecode to TestReferenceEqual Bug: v8:5310 Change-Id: Ib2b47cd24d5386cf0d20d3bd794776dc6e3a02a5 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/1007542Reviewed-by:
Leszek Swirski <leszeks@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Christian O. Andersson <cricke@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#52655}
-
- 16 Feb, 2018 1 commit
-
-
Camillo Bruni authored
Bug: v8:7310 Change-Id: I82e7ada4c0f7e415887a859719eb01bb45fd3012 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/921742Reviewed-by:
Michael Lippautz <mlippautz@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Peter Marshall <petermarshall@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Camillo Bruni <cbruni@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#51324}
-
- 22 Dec, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Daniel Ehrenberg authored
This patch implements https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/pull/65 and https://github.com/tc39/proposal-static-class-features/ by splitting out instance and static field declarations into separate flags for the separate proposals. Instance class fields is currently at Stage 3 whereas static class fields is currently at Stage 2. Bug: v8:5367 Change-Id: I133c945fd0b22dc5718c7bb61b10f22348087acd Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/839778 Commit-Queue: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledan@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#50293}
-
- 28 Nov, 2017 3 commits
-
-
Sathya Gunasekaran authored
Bug: v8:5367 Change-Id: Ib24190f6cfc0765794a1a5d9ac33cf1c1e2b6fba Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/793150Reviewed-by:
Mythri Alle <mythria@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#49665}
-
Sathya Gunasekaran authored
Change the existing uses of the harmony-class-fields flag to harmony-public-fields so that we can stage this separately from the upcoming harmony-private-fields to get some clusterfuzz coverage. Bug: v8:5367 Change-Id: I76cdefa4faf34eae73d3a5f6d6089cf75677732a Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/792940 Commit-Queue: Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#49661}
-
Sathya Gunasekaran authored
Bug: v8:5367 Change-Id: Ic725c5ef22ab05891764d3ebf9a99c0d383e6d90 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/789939Reviewed-by:
Mythri Alle <mythria@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Igor Sheludko <ishell@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#49660}
-
- 27 Nov, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Sathya Gunasekaran authored
Previously, the class fields initializer function was stored on a synthetic context allocated variable. This approach had sevaral problems: - We didn't know that class literal had fields until after we had completely parsed the class literal. This meant that we had to go back and fix up the scope of the constructor to have this synthetic variable. This resulted in mismatch between parser and preparsed scope data. - This synthetic variable could potentially resolve to an initializer of an outer class. For ex: class X extends Object { c = 1; constructor() { var t = () => { class P extends Object { constructor() { var t = () => { super(); }; t(); } } super(); } t(); } } In this the inner class P could access the outer class X's initiliazer function. We would have to maintain extra metadata to make sure this doesn't happen. Instead this new approach uses a private symbol to store the initializer function on the class constructor itself. For the base constructor case, we can simply check for a bit on the constructor function literal to see if we need to emit code that loads and calls this initializer function. Therefore, we don't pay the cost of loading this function in case there are no class fields. For the derived constructor case, there are two possiblities: (a) We are in a super() call directly in the derived constructor: In this case we can do a check similar to the base constructor check, we can check for a bit on the derived constructor and emit code for loading and calling the initializer function. This is usually the common case and we don't pay any cost for not using class fields. (b) We are in a super() call inside an arrow function in the derived constructor: In this case, we /always/ emit code to load and call the initializer function. If the function doesn't exist then we have undefined and we don't call anything. Otherwise we call the function. super() can't be called twice so even if we emit code to load and call the initializer function multiple times, it doesn't matter because it would have already been an error. Bug: v8:5367 Change-Id: I7f77cd6493ff84cf0e430a8c1039bc9ac6941a88 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/781660 Commit-Queue: Sathya Gunasekaran <gsathya@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Georg Neis <neis@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
Mythri Alle <mythria@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#49628}
-