Minor refactoring: unify lazy function compilation for in loop and no in loop variants.

Minor refactoring: unify lazy function compilation for in loop and no in loop variants.

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=6873

[antonm, 2011-02-18 15:03:40]

Kevin,

another tiny review for you

[Kevin Millikin (Chromium), 2011-02-18 16:16:58]

LGTM, nice cleanup.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6542017/diff/1/src/handles.cc
File src/handles.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6542017/diff/1/src/handles.cc#newcode859
src/handles.cc:859: return CompileLazyFunction(function, flag, false /* in loop
*/);
The C style comment is OK, but I don't think we have any examples of the style
in the code already:

You could also consider:

const kInLoop = false;
return CompileLazyFunction(function, flag, kInLoop);

but it's not obviously better.

[antonm, 2011-02-21 18:27:58]

Thanks a lot for review and suggestions, guys.  Submitting

http://codereview.chromium.org/6542017/diff/1/src/handles.cc
File src/handles.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6542017/diff/1/src/handles.cc#newcode859
src/handles.cc:859: return CompileLazyFunction(function, flag, false /* in loop
*/);
(And responding to Slava too): I didn't want to introduce new enum, but then
recalled we already have this IN_LOOP/NOT_IN_LOOP stuff, switched to it.

On 2011/02/18 16:16:58, Kevin Millikin wrote:
> The C style comment is OK, but I don't think we have any examples of the style
> in the code already:
> 
> You could also consider:
> 
> const kInLoop = false;
> return CompileLazyFunction(function, flag, kInLoop);
> 
> but it's not obviously better.