Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(57)

Issue 115706: X64: Omitted creating native builtins and using them in test-heap. (Closed)

Created:
11 years, 7 months ago by Lasse Reichstein
Modified:
9 years, 6 months ago
CC:
v8-dev
Visibility:
Public.

Description

X64: Omitted creating native builtins and using them in test-heap. This allows test-heap to run successfully.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 7
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+34 lines, -7 lines) Patch
M src/bootstrapper.cc View 1 chunk +3 lines, -0 lines 3 comments Download
M src/heap.h View 1 chunk +3 lines, -0 lines 2 comments Download
M src/heap.cc View 2 chunks +3 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/objects.cc View 1 chunk +3 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/objects-inl.h View 1 chunk +3 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M test/cctest/test-heap.cc View 2 chunks +19 lines, -6 lines 2 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 4 (0 generated)
Lasse Reichstein
Review please
11 years, 7 months ago (2009-05-22 11:51:01 UTC) #1
William Hesse
LGTM. We don't want to have an explosion of #ifdef X64 exclusions in the main ...
11 years, 7 months ago (2009-05-22 12:21:13 UTC) #2
Kevin Millikin (Chromium)
I wonder if we should be stubbing out function calls or function implementations instead (or ...
11 years, 7 months ago (2009-05-22 12:47:48 UTC) #3
Lasse Reichstein
11 years, 7 months ago (2009-05-22 13:10:10 UTC) #4
Good comments.

http://codereview.chromium.org/115706/diff/1/2
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115706/diff/1/2#newcode1537
Line 1537: if (!InstallNatives()) return;
I have moved the ifdef inside the function, and even restricted it to dropping
only some of the function body (from where it starts compiling stuff).

http://codereview.chromium.org/115706/diff/1/4
File src/heap.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115706/diff/1/4#newcode1052
Line 1052: ASSERT(Page::IsRSetSet(reinterpret_cast<Address>(current), 0));
Done.
Returning true should be a safe approximation (unless someone is asserting that
it returns false somewhere).

http://codereview.chromium.org/115706/diff/1/7
File test/cctest/test-heap.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115706/diff/1/7#newcode191
Line 191: ASSERT_EQ(request, OBJECT_SIZE_ALIGN(request));
I couldn't decide. It's not a check in the same sense as the following ones.
They check that something works as intended.  This is more like a sanity check
for the test itself. I.e., if this fails, it's not a bug in the code being
tested, but in the test itself - equivalent to ASSERTs in the main code.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698