[interpreter] Allow mixed stacks if bytecode is preserved.

[interpreter] Allow mixed stacks if bytecode is preserved.

This changes the compilation pipeline so that mixed stacks are allowed
when bytecode is preserved. This means there can be activations of both,
"baseline" as well as "unoptimized" code active on the stack at the same
time for any single given function.

R=rmcilroy@chromium.org
BUG=v8:4280
Committed: https://crrev.com/5e08f43531b5f2d8577c6e523c49911b2347db66
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38809}

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-08-22 12:16:28]

The CQ bit was checked by mstarzinger@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 12:16:30]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-08-22 12:40:07]

The CQ bit was checked by mstarzinger@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 12:40:18]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 13:15:45]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 13:15:45]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[rmcilroy, 2016-08-22 15:33:03]

LGTM. Will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the perf bots.
Thanks.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc
File src/compiler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc#newcode951
src/compiler.cc:951: // underlying bytecode is cleared below.
nit - could you update the comment to mention we only do this if
FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode isn't set

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc#newcode...
src/compiler.cc:1421: // can be sure there are no activations.
And here

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc#newcode...
src/compiler.cc:1441: // that it can be used as the "source of truth"
eventually.
nit - could you update the comment

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/test/cctest/test-compil...
File test/cctest/test-compiler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/test/cctest/test-compil...
test/cctest/test-compiler.cc:806: bool base = FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode;
just do: "if (FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode) return" up at the top?

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-08-22 15:43:53]

The CQ bit was checked by mstarzinger@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 15:43:56]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-08-22 15:44:23]

Thanks! Comments addressed. Will land tomorrow.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc
File src/compiler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc#newcode951
src/compiler.cc:951: // underlying bytecode is cleared below.
On 2016/08/22 15:33:03, rmcilroy wrote:
> nit - could you update the comment to mention we only do this if
> FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode isn't set

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc#newcode...
src/compiler.cc:1421: // can be sure there are no activations.
On 2016/08/22 15:33:03, rmcilroy wrote:
> And here

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/src/compiler.cc#newcode...
src/compiler.cc:1441: // that it can be used as the "source of truth"
eventually.
On 2016/08/22 15:33:03, rmcilroy wrote:
> nit - could you update the comment

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/test/cctest/test-compil...
File test/cctest/test-compiler.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/diff/40001/test/cctest/test-compil...
test/cctest/test-compiler.cc:806: bool base = FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode;
On 2016/08/22 15:33:03, rmcilroy wrote:
> just do: "if (FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode) return" up at the top?

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 16:15:56]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-22 16:15:58]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-08-23 07:38:46]

The CQ bit was checked by mstarzinger@chromium.org

[Michael Starzinger, 2016-08-23 07:38:47]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
rmcilroy@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2267693002/#ps80001
(title: "One more comment.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 07:38:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 07:41:03]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 07:41:11]

Description was changed from

==========
[interpreter] Allow mixed stacks if bytecode is preserved.

This changes the compilation pipeline so that mixed stacks are allowed
when bytecode is preserved. This means there can be activations of both,
"baseline" as well as "unoptimized" code active on the stack at the same
time for any single given function.

R=rmcilroy@chromium.org
BUG=v8:4280
==========

to

==========
[interpreter] Allow mixed stacks if bytecode is preserved.

This changes the compilation pipeline so that mixed stacks are allowed
when bytecode is preserved. This means there can be activations of both,
"baseline" as well as "unoptimized" code active on the stack at the same
time for any single given function.

R=rmcilroy@chromium.org
BUG=v8:4280

Committed: https://crrev.com/5e08f43531b5f2d8577c6e523c49911b2347db66
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38809}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-08-23 07:41:12]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/5e08f43531b5f2d8577c6e523c49911b2347db66
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#38809}