Logger: extract CodeEventLogger classes.

Logger: extract CodeEventLogger classes.

The idea is to extract all the CodeEvent loggers into separate classes
make an interface for code events and put them into a listeners array.

I extracted code that works with name_buffer into a separate base class CodeEventLogger.
And made JitLogger, LowLevelLogger and new CodeMap its descendants.

As a side effect I converted NameBuffer into nested class of CodeEventLogger
and converted NameMap into nested class of CodeMap.

BUG=260203
R=yangguo@chromium.org, yurys@chromium.org

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=15784

[yurys, 2013-07-19 12:30:34]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc
File src/log.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode83
src/log.cc:83: class NameBuffer {
Should be protected in CodeEventLogger?

https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode183
src/log.cc:183: NameBuffer name_buffer_;
Now there is a separate instance of NameBuffer in each descendant but that
should be fine I guess. We could optimize it later if it has considerable
performance impact.

https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode370
src/log.cc:370: #define CODE_ADDRESS_MAP(Call)\
CODE_ADDRESS_MAP_LOG?

[loislo, 2013-07-19 12:43:22]

On 2013/07/19 12:30:34, Yury Semikhatsky wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc
> File src/log.cc (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode83
> src/log.cc:83: class NameBuffer {
> Should be protected in CodeEventLogger?

done

> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode183
> src/log.cc:183: NameBuffer name_buffer_;
> Now there is a separate instance of NameBuffer in each descendant but that
> should be fine I guess. We could optimize it later if it has considerable
> performance impact.
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode370
> src/log.cc:370: #define CODE_ADDRESS_MAP(Call)\
> CODE_ADDRESS_MAP_LOG?

done

[Yang, 2013-07-19 13:40:42]

On 2013/07/19 12:43:22, loislo wrote:
> On 2013/07/19 12:30:34, Yury Semikhatsky wrote:
> > lgtm
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc
> > File src/log.cc (right):
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode83
> > src/log.cc:83: class NameBuffer {
> > Should be protected in CodeEventLogger?
> 
> done
> 
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode183
> > src/log.cc:183: NameBuffer name_buffer_;
> > Now there is a separate instance of NameBuffer in each descendant but that
> > should be fine I guess. We could optimize it later if it has considerable
> > performance impact.
> > 
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/19795002/diff/5001/src/log.cc#newcode370
> > src/log.cc:370: #define CODE_ADDRESS_MAP(Call)\
> > CODE_ADDRESS_MAP_LOG?
> 
> done

lgtm.

[loislo, 2013-07-19 14:59:16]

Committed patchset #4 manually as r15784 (presubmit successful).