Add Dart_Save/LoadCompilationTrace.

Add Dart_Save/LoadCompilationTrace.

R=zra@google.com

Committed: https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/commit/74f3d1bd9cf01347d714e9f33515d9d4ebc9fa15

[rmacnak, 2017-06-05 21:24:05]

rmacnak@google.com changed reviewers:
+ zra@google.com

[zra, 2017-06-05 22:08:57]

Why are you checking in a trace? It doesn't look like it's used. Is this a step
toward generating/using a core jit snapshot to test with?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
File runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6492: class CompilationTraceSaver : public
FunctionVisitor {
Since this source file is already 7k+ lines, consider moving
CompilationTrace{Saver,Loader} to vm/compilation_trace.{cc,h}.

Also, would it make sense to rename "compilation trace" -> "core JIT trace"

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6503: if (!function.HasCode()) return;
curly braces.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6563: // First compile function named in the trace.
functions

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6585: // Next, compile common dispatchers. This
aren't found with the normal
These aren't

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6689: if (field_.StaticValue() ==
Object::sentinel().raw()) {
&& instead of nested if?

[rmacnak, 2017-06-05 23:14:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
File runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6492: class CompilationTraceSaver : public
FunctionVisitor {
On 2017/06/05 22:08:57, zra wrote:
> Since this source file is already 7k+ lines, consider moving
> CompilationTrace{Saver,Loader} to vm/compilation_trace.{cc,h}.

Done.

> Also, would it make sense to rename "compilation trace" -> "core JIT trace"

It's not specific to a core snapshot: it would be able to produce a (lower
quality) app JIT snapshot too. For now I'd like to avoid a name overlap with the
(more brittle) JIT feedback, though it may be good to find a way to merge them
eventually.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6503: if (!function.HasCode()) return;
On 2017/06/05 22:08:57, zra wrote:
> curly braces.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6563: // First compile function named in the trace.
On 2017/06/05 22:08:57, zra wrote:
> functions

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6585: // Next, compile common dispatchers. This
aren't found with the normal
On 2017/06/05 22:08:57, zra wrote:
> These aren't

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2922913004/diff/20001/runtime/vm/dart_api_imp...
runtime/vm/dart_api_impl.cc:6689: if (field_.StaticValue() ==
Object::sentinel().raw()) {
On 2017/06/05 22:08:57, zra wrote:
> && instead of nested if?

Done.

[rmacnak, 2017-06-05 23:15:15]

On 2017/06/05 22:08:57, zra wrote:
> Why are you checking in a trace? It doesn't look like it's used. Is this a
step
> toward generating/using a core jit snapshot to test with?

Removed. I was using it locally for testing. We can check in or generate a trace
when we have a full flow.

[zra, 2017-06-05 23:17:20]

lgtm

[rmacnak, 2017-06-05 23:56:26]

Description was changed from

==========
Add Dart_Save/LoadCompilationTrace.
==========

to

==========
Add Dart_Save/LoadCompilationTrace.

R=zra@google.com

Committed:
https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/commit/74f3d1bd9cf01347d714e9f33515d9d4ebc9fa15
==========

[rmacnak, 2017-06-05 23:56:27]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) manually as
74f3d1bd9cf01347d714e9f33515d9d4ebc9fa15 (presubmit successful).