Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(80)

Unified Diff: src/compiler.cc

Issue 2267693002: [interpreter] Allow mixed stacks if bytecode is preserved. (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8.git@master
Patch Set: Adapt test. Created 4 years, 4 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | test/cctest/test-compiler.cc » ('j') | test/cctest/test-compiler.cc » ('J')
Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Show Comments Hide Comments ('s')
Index: src/compiler.cc
diff --git a/src/compiler.cc b/src/compiler.cc
index 10179819bca20f7ab51b7ae80076d9cc21e71d02..e6927c6e7ef9b6bcaa9f54532e008887caebb7a9 100644
--- a/src/compiler.cc
+++ b/src/compiler.cc
@@ -947,26 +947,27 @@ MaybeHandle<Code> GetBaselineCode(Handle<JSFunction> function) {
}
// TODO(4280): For now we disable switching to baseline code in the presence
- // of interpreter activations of the given function. The reasons are:
- // 1) The debugger assumes each function is either full-code or bytecode.
- // 2) The underlying bytecode is cleared below, breaking stack unwinding.
- InterpreterActivationsFinder activations_finder(function->shared());
- if (HasInterpreterActivations(isolate, &activations_finder)) {
- if (FLAG_trace_opt) {
- OFStream os(stdout);
- os << "[unable to switch " << Brief(*function) << " due to activations]"
- << std::endl;
- }
-
- if (activations_finder.MarkActivationsForBaselineOnReturn(isolate)) {
+ // of interpreter activations of the given function. The reasons is that the
+ // underlying bytecode is cleared below.
rmcilroy 2016/08/22 15:33:03 nit - could you update the comment to mention we o
Michael Starzinger 2016/08/22 15:44:22 Done.
+ if (!FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode) {
+ InterpreterActivationsFinder activations_finder(function->shared());
+ if (HasInterpreterActivations(isolate, &activations_finder)) {
if (FLAG_trace_opt) {
OFStream os(stdout);
- os << "[marking " << Brief(function->shared())
- << " for baseline recompilation on return]" << std::endl;
+ os << "[unable to switch " << Brief(*function) << " due to activations]"
+ << std::endl;
}
- }
- return MaybeHandle<Code>();
+ if (activations_finder.MarkActivationsForBaselineOnReturn(isolate)) {
+ if (FLAG_trace_opt) {
+ OFStream os(stdout);
+ os << "[marking " << Brief(function->shared())
+ << " for baseline recompilation on return]" << std::endl;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return MaybeHandle<Code>();
+ }
}
if (FLAG_trace_opt) {
@@ -1414,12 +1415,11 @@ bool Compiler::EnsureDeoptimizationSupport(CompilationInfo* info) {
if (shared->is_resumable()) return false;
// TODO(4280): For now we disable switching to baseline code in the presence
- // of interpreter activations of the given function. The reasons are:
- // 1) The debugger assumes each function is either full-code or bytecode.
- // 2) The underlying bytecode is cleared below, breaking stack unwinding.
- // The expensive check for activations only needs to be done when the given
- // function has bytecode, otherwise we can be sure there are no activations.
- if (shared->HasBytecodeArray()) {
+ // of interpreter activations of the given function. The reasons is that the
+ // underlying bytecode is cleared below. The expensive check for activations
+ // only needs to be done when the given function has bytecode, otherwise we
+ // can be sure there are no activations.
rmcilroy 2016/08/22 15:33:03 And here
Michael Starzinger 2016/08/22 15:44:22 Done.
+ if (!FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode && shared->HasBytecodeArray()) {
InterpreterActivationsFinder activations_finder(*shared);
if (HasInterpreterActivations(info->isolate(), &activations_finder)) {
return false;
@@ -1439,8 +1439,8 @@ bool Compiler::EnsureDeoptimizationSupport(CompilationInfo* info) {
// TODO(4280): For now we play it safe and remove the bytecode array when we
// switch to baseline code. We might consider keeping around the bytecode so
// that it can be used as the "source of truth" eventually.
rmcilroy 2016/08/22 15:33:03 nit - could you update the comment
Michael Starzinger 2016/08/22 15:44:23 Done.
- if (shared->HasBytecodeArray()) {
- if (!FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode) shared->ClearBytecodeArray();
+ if (!FLAG_ignition_preserve_bytecode && shared->HasBytecodeArray()) {
+ shared->ClearBytecodeArray();
}
// The scope info might not have been set if a lazily compiled
« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | test/cctest/test-compiler.cc » ('j') | test/cctest/test-compiler.cc » ('J')

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698