Closed
Bug 1064668
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
fix two asm.js profiling regressions
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Core
JavaScript Engine
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla35
| Tracking | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| firefox33 | --- | unaffected |
| firefox34 | + | fixed |
| firefox35 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: luke, Assigned: luke)
References
Details
Attachments
(4 files)
|
4.17 KB,
patch
|
bbouvier
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
2.89 KB,
patch
|
djvj
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
|
6.85 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
|
3.11 KB,
patch
|
lmandel
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
These came up profiling the SIMD demos.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Function offsets need to eventually be stored in the AsmJSModule relative to the beginning of the module. However, my earlier patch changed them to be module-relative too early and thus was feeding module-relative offsets into tokenStream.lineNum() which expects ScriptSource-relative offsets.
Assignee: nobody → luke
Attachment #8486176 -
Flags: review?(benj)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
I think I suggested the "refactoring" that broke this. The issue is that AsmJSActivation contains fields that were being initialized after the activation had been added to rt->profilingActivation_ and thus visible to asynchronous profiling.
Attachment #8486177 -
Flags: review?(kvijayan)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Combined patch for Dan.
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8486177 [details] [diff] [review]
fix-asmjs-profiling
Review of attachment 8486177 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, such finnicky stuff :)
Attachment #8486177 -
Flags: review?(kvijayan) → review+
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8486176 [details] [diff] [review]
fix-line-numbers
Review of attachment 8486176 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nice catch!
::: js/src/asmjs/AsmJSValidate.cpp
@@ -1018,5 @@
> -
> - // The begin/end char range is relative to the beginning of the module.
> - // hence the assertions.
> - JS_ASSERT(fn->pn_pos.begin > m.srcStart());
> - JS_ASSERT(fn->pn_pos.begin <= fn->pn_pos.end);
Could we keep these two assertions in AsmJSModule.h?
Attachment #8486176 -
Flags: review?(benj) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Benjamin Bouvier [:bbouvier] from comment #5)
> Could we keep these two assertions in AsmJSModule.h?
Yes, good point, I'll put them in AsmJSModule::addExportedFunction.
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5d9c1780c779
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/526c183e9cd3
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/526c183e9cd3
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5d9c1780c779
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla35
| Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]:1057082
[User impact if declined]: crash while profiling asm.js code
[Describe test coverage new/current, TBPL]: m-c, m-a
[Risks and why]: quite low; this is a pretty simple fix to a simple bug; no rebasing required.
Attachment #8506950 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Updated•11 years ago
|
Updated•11 years ago
|
status-firefox33:
--- → unaffected
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8506950 [details] [diff] [review]
beta.patch
Beta+
Attachment #8506950 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta? → approval-mozilla-beta+
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•