Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(623)

Issue 552065: Add the for statement back into the set of things the... (Closed)

Created:
10 years, 11 months ago by Erik Corry
Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago
Reviewers:
fschneider
CC:
v8-dev
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Add the for statement back into the set of things the non-optimizing compiler can cope with. By default it bails out to the old compiler on encountering a for loop (for performance) but with this change the --always-fast-compiler flag will enable functions with for loops to be compiled in the non-optimizing compiler. Also enables the non-optimizing compiler on functions that can be lazily compiled (again only with the flag). Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=3667

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 2
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+91 lines, -4 lines) Patch
M src/compiler.cc View 2 chunks +16 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M src/fast-codegen.cc View 1 chunk +42 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M test/mjsunit/debug-step.js View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 2 comments Download
A test/mjsunit/for.js View 1 chunk +32 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)
Erik Corry
10 years, 11 months ago (2010-01-20 14:40:33 UTC) #1
fschneider
LGTM. http://codereview.chromium.org/552065/diff/1/2 File test/mjsunit/debug-step.js (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/552065/diff/1/2#newcode82 test/mjsunit/debug-step.js:82: Debug.setListener(null); This file did not change, right?
10 years, 11 months ago (2010-01-20 15:10:43 UTC) #2
Erik Corry
10 years, 11 months ago (2010-01-20 21:25:03 UTC) #3
http://codereview.chromium.org/552065/diff/1/2
File test/mjsunit/debug-step.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/552065/diff/1/2#newcode82
test/mjsunit/debug-step.js:82: Debug.setListener(null);
On 2010/01/20 15:10:43, fschneider wrote:
> This file did not change, right?

There was a missing newline on the last line, which this patch fixes.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698