thread isolate for files starting with 'b' and 'c'

src/code-stubs.cc

Index: src/code-stubs.cc
diff --git a/src/code-stubs.cc b/src/code-stubs.cc
index 01456ee186dcb3a6499aed14b6e5877f5ae7efe6..60112755090dacbf9ea5907f2982ec8c7738c7d5 100644
--- a/src/code-stubs.cc
+++ b/src/code-stubs.cc
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ CodeStubInterfaceDescriptor::CodeStubInterfaceDescriptor()
       function_mode_(NOT_JS_FUNCTION_STUB_MODE),
       register_params_(NULL),
       deoptimization_handler_(NULL),
-      miss_handler_(IC_Utility(IC::kUnreachable), Isolate::Current()),
+      miss_handler_(),

[Sven Panne, 2013/09/02 12:40:52]

Is this change intentional? I can't easily see why it's correct/needed...

[dcarney, 2013/09/02 12:47:01]

yes, intentional. all accesses to miss_handler are checked to ensure they were
set in the first place, so NULL here is okay

       has_miss_handler_(false) { }
 
 
@@ -93,8 +93,7 @@ Handle<Code> CodeStub::GetCodeCopyFromTemplate(Isolate* isolate) {
 }
 
 
-Handle<Code> PlatformCodeStub::GenerateCode() {
-  Isolate* isolate = Isolate::Current();
+Handle<Code> PlatformCodeStub::GenerateCode(Isolate* isolate) {
   Factory* factory = isolate->factory();
 
   // Generate the new code.
@@ -144,7 +143,7 @@ Handle<Code> CodeStub::GetCode(Isolate* isolate) {
   {
     HandleScope scope(isolate);
 
-    Handle<Code> new_object = GenerateCode();
+    Handle<Code> new_object = GenerateCode(isolate);
     new_object->set_major_key(MajorKey());
     FinishCode(new_object);
     RecordCodeGeneration(*new_object, isolate);