Introduce first approximation of constructor heap profile for JS objects.

Introduce first approximation of constructor heap profile for JS objects.

It is activated with '--log-gc' flag.

JS object size is calculated as its size + size of 'properties' and 'elements' arrays, if they are non-empty. This doesn't take maps, strings, heap numbers, and other shared objects into account.

As Soeren suggested, I've moved ZoneSplayTree from jsregexp to zone, and removed now empty jsregexp-inl header file.

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2570

[Søren Thygesen Gjesse, 2009-07-29 07:17:46]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2
File src/heap.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2#newcode37
Line 37: #include "jsregexp-inl.h"  // for ZoneSplayTree
I think we should move ZoneSplayTree to zone.h/zone-inl.h.

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2#newcode3396
Line 3396: namespace {
Why do you need this?

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2#newcode3406
Line 3406: struct TreeConfig {
Maybe you should add a comment on why it is OK to use raw object pointers here
and why you are just comparing pointer values.

[Mikhail Naganov, 2009-07-29 08:05:22]

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2
File src/heap.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2#newcode37
Line 37: #include "jsregexp-inl.h"  // for ZoneSplayTree
On 2009/07/29 07:17:46, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> I think we should move ZoneSplayTree to zone.h/zone-inl.h.

Done. As 'jsregexp-inl.h' only contained ZoneSplayTree implementation, I've
removed it.

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2#newcode3396
Line 3396: namespace {
On 2009/07/29 07:17:46, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> Why do you need this?

Unnamed namespaces are allowed and even encouraged in .cc files, to avoid
runtime naming conflicts.
http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml?showone=Namesp...

http://codereview.chromium.org/159504/diff/1/2#newcode3406
Line 3406: struct TreeConfig {
On 2009/07/29 07:17:46, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> Maybe you should add a comment on why it is OK to use raw object pointers here
> and why you are just comparing pointer values.

Done.