364809 - Remove jsop_* from JSContext

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Description

[Aiko]

Since bug 325951 removed support for older JS versions, cx->jsop_eq / cx->jsop_ne always contain JSOP_EQ / JSOP_NE and are thus redundant.

Comment 1

[Aiko]

Attachment: patch

I moved version down to make it fit into the same dword as insideGCMarkCallback. That reduces the size of a JSContext from 360 to 356 bytes on x86 but I think the main benefit of this patch is that it makes it a bit easier to look at this huge struct in a debugger.

Comment 2

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

This is good, sorry I didn't review till now.  Need help from Igor or Brian to get the patch landed.  I'll defer review to Igor, who did the version-reduction work (which we should probably do more of; I'm vexed by JS_HAS_BLOCK_SCOPE and so was mrbkap, last I heard).

/be

Comment 3

[Aiko]

Attachment: Updated to CVS head

The previous patch has bitrotted a little.

Comment 4

[Igor Bukanov]

I committed the patch from comment 3 to the trunk:

Checking in jscntxt.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/js/src/jscntxt.c,v  <--  jscntxt.c
new revision: 3.101; previous revision: 3.100
done
Checking in jscntxt.h;
/cvsroot/mozilla/js/src/jscntxt.h,v  <--  jscntxt.h
new revision: 3.139; previous revision: 3.138
done
Checking in jsscan.c;
/cvsroot/mozilla/js/src/jsscan.c,v  <--  jsscan.c
new revision: 3.118; previous revision: 3.117
done

Mark this fixed when you see that the committed code was the right one.

Comment 5

[Aiko]

Thanks for the checkin!

So it looks like this increased the code size on argo-vm by 48 bytes because version's offset is now greater than 127 bytes. If we want these bytes back we could change interpLevel to an uint16 (MAX_INTERP_LEVEL is 1000) and pair it with version. Moving options up and the regExpStatics down saves another ~120 bytes (MSVC, optimised). Are these savings worth another patch?

Comment 6

[Igor Bukanov]

(In reply to comment #5)
Moving options up and the regExpStatics down saves another ~120
> bytes (MSVC, optimised). Are these savings worth another patch?

Yes, but please file another bug for that.