Closed
Bug 387286
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
Consistent naming for JOF_ type flags
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, enhancement)
Core
JavaScript Engine
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: igor, Unassigned)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
33.92 KB,
patch
|
igor
:
review+
brendan
:
approval1.9+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
16.28 KB,
text/plain
|
Details |
[This is a spin-off of bug 385729 comment 37 and 39.]
Bug 385729 introduced separated tables for object and regexp that are stored in JSScript* in addition to JSScript.atomMap. In view of that names of JOF_CONST or JOF_INDEXCONST bytecode types becomes rather misleading. It would be nice for consistency to rename them and related functions to names that better reflects the nature of bytecodes.
Updated•18 years ago
|
Assignee: darin.moz → general
Component: IPC → JavaScript Engine
QA Contact: general
Comment 1•18 years ago
|
||
Here's a patch which makes the following changes:
JOF_CONST -> JOF_ATOM
JOF_INDEXCONST -> JOF_SLOTATOM
JOF_INDEXOBJECT -> JOF_SLOTOBJECT
EmitIndexConstOp -> EmitSlotIndexOp
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #271483 -
Flags: review?(igor)
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 271483 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1
Thanks for looking into this!
Attachment #271483 -
Flags: review?(igor)
Attachment #271483 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #271483 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Comment 3•18 years ago
|
||
Patch updated to apply against HEAD.
Attachment #271483 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #275650 -
Flags: review?(igor)
Attachment #271483 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=275650) [details]
> Patch v2
Rich: Could you attach a plain diff between v1 and v2 to simplify reviewing? Bugzilla interrdiff does not work here. Note also that the new check in rules require either blocking 1.9 flag on the bug or approval 1.9 flag on the patch, see http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/Firefox/ .
Brendan: This should be included in 1.9, so could you set the blocking flag?
Flags: blocking1.9?
Comment 5•18 years ago
|
||
I'll just approve the patch once it's r+.
/be
Comment 6•18 years ago
|
||
I diffed the patches - is that what you wanted? I think the only changes between patches are the inclusion of more context, and handling the renaming of JSOP_NUMBER to JSOP_DOUBLE.
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=275661) [details]
> Differences between v1 and v2
Could you just add a plain diff, not -u one, as in:
diff v1.patch v2.patch > v1_v2.diff
Since the plain diff uses >< as opposed to +- it is very easy to see the patch evolution.
Comment 8•18 years ago
|
||
Ok, that makes sense. Here's a plain diff.
Attachment #275661 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 275668 [details]
Differences between v1 and v2 (plain)
This is not a patch.
Attachment #275668 -
Attachment is patch: false
Reporter | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #275650 -
Flags: review?(igor)
Attachment #275650 -
Flags: review+
Attachment #275650 -
Flags: approval1.9?
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8)
> Ok, that makes sense. Here's a plain diff.
Thanks. The diff clearly shows that the update was necessary due to that JSOP_NUMBER->JSOP_DOUBLE rename.
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #275650 -
Flags: approval1.9? → approval1.9+
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•18 years ago
|
||
I checked in the patch from comment 3 to the trunk:
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?module=PhoenixTinderbox&branch=HEAD&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot&date=explicit&mindate=1186579980&maxdate=1186580280&who=igor%mir2.org
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•18 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9? → in-testsuite-
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•