Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(528)

Issue 10827240: Implement new catch syntax in vm compiler (Closed)

Created:
8 years, 4 months ago by hausner
Modified:
8 years, 4 months ago
Reviewers:
siva
CC:
reviews_dartlang.org
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Implement new catch syntax in vm compiler - Support for new on T catch (e) syntax - warning (default:off) when old catch clause syntax is found - convert one language test to used new catch syntax Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=10456

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : #

Total comments: 2

Patch Set 3 : #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+83 lines, -39 lines) Patch
M runtime/vm/parser.cc View 1 2 3 chunks +57 lines, -8 lines 0 comments Download
M tests/co19/co19-runtime.status View 1 2 1 chunk +1 line, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M tests/language/language_dart2js.status View 1 2 1 chunk +1 line, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M tests/language/try_catch_syntax_test.dart View 1 2 1 chunk +0 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M tests/language/try_catch_test.dart View 1 2 8 chunks +24 lines, -30 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)
hausner
8 years, 4 months ago (2012-08-08 23:57:18 UTC) #1
siva
lgtm http://codereview.chromium.org/10827240/diff/2001/runtime/vm/parser.cc File runtime/vm/parser.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/10827240/diff/2001/runtime/vm/parser.cc#newcode5622 runtime/vm/parser.cc:5622: } The processing of the stacktrace part seems ...
8 years, 4 months ago (2012-08-09 19:59:29 UTC) #2
hausner
8 years, 4 months ago (2012-08-09 20:14:49 UTC) #3
Thanks for the review.

http://codereview.chromium.org/10827240/diff/2001/runtime/vm/parser.cc
File runtime/vm/parser.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10827240/diff/2001/runtime/vm/parser.cc#newcod...
runtime/vm/parser.cc:5622: }
On 2012/08/09 19:59:29, asiva wrote:
> The processing of the stacktrace part seems identical in both cases, here and
> the code above. You could possibly abstract that out into a helper function.

True, but when I'll eliminate the code for the old syntax, I will restructure
this so that the catch(e,t) part is handled only once. In the meantime, I think
a bit of code duplication does not do any harm.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698