Closed
Bug 1082107
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
OdinMonkey: add maximum-length requirement to change-heap definition
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine: JIT, defect)
Core
JavaScript Engine: JIT
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla36
People
(Reporter: luke, Assigned: luke)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
53.43 KB,
patch
|
bbouvier
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
53.76 KB,
patch
|
luke
:
review+
Sylvestre
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This patch adds an additional maximum-heap disjunct for the reasons described in: http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/request-for-comments-switching-resizing-heaps-in-asm-js/641/17
Attachment #8504225 -
Flags: review?(benj)
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Sorry for the churn (particularly in tests). I tried to be careful to make sure all the failing tests failed for the intended reason, not just b/c they were missing the third disjunct.
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8504225 [details] [diff] [review] tweak-change-heap Review of attachment 8504225 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Easy to read once we're acquainted with AST pattern matching :) Would it make sense to wait for comments on the specifiction thread before landing this? ::: js/src/jit-test/tests/asm.js/testResize.js @@ +175,5 @@ > > // Tests for validation of heap length > > +var body = USE_ASM + IMPORT1 + 'function ch(b2) { if(len(b2) & 0xffffff || len(b2) <= 0x1ffffff || len(b2) > 0x80000000) return false; i8=new I8(b2); b=b2; return true } function f() { return 42 } return ch'; > +var m = asmCompile('glob', 'ffis', 'b', body); Could you add a test involving a module compiled with a low max-limit, and an attempt to change the heap to a heap with an value higher than this limit? I think i didn't see any.
Attachment #8504225 -
Flags: review?(benj) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Benjamin Bouvier [:bbouvier] from comment #2) > Easy to read once we're acquainted with AST pattern matching :) > Would it make sense to wait for comments on the specifiction thread before > landing this? Yep, I was planning to do this. > Could you add a test involving a module compiled with a low max-limit, and > an attempt to change the heap to a heap with an value higher than this > limit? I think i didn't see any. Yes, good idea.
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/8d4702c0db51
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Carrying forward r+; this is just the original patch with feedback addressed. Approval Request Comment [User impact if declined]: inconsistent validation of new asm.js feature between two versions [Describe test coverage new/current, TBPL]: mozilla-inbound, has tests [Risks and why]: low, this is just a validation tweak on top of bug 965880, which landed right before ff35 branched
Attachment #8506143 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #8506143 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8d4702c0db51
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla36
Updated•10 years ago
|
status-firefox35:
--- → affected
status-firefox36:
--- → fixed
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8506143 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•