Summary: | Make HTML5 lexer not ASSERT when resuming partial parses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Adam Barth <abarth> | ||||
Component: | New Bugs | Assignee: | Adam Barth <abarth> | ||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||
Severity: | Normal | CC: | eric | ||||
Priority: | P2 | ||||||
Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||||||
Hardware: | Other | ||||||
OS: | OS X 10.5 | ||||||
Bug Depends on: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 39259 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Adam Barth
2010-05-26 11:31:11 PDT
Created attachment 57122 [details]
Patch
Comment on attachment 57122 [details]
Patch
This is an excellent test to have. However, I'm confused by the output. Are we running each script more than once?
You should add a comment next to m_token as to why we need to hold it as a member.
isEndTagBufferingState is almost big enough to justify using a hash. Unclear.
Ok, so I love the patch. My big concern is the test. Why is this forked from runner/webkit_runner. Can we just add this functionality to one of those, or does this need to be a copy of the javascript forever?
r- for the above nits.
> This is an excellent test to have. However, I'm confused by the output. Are we running each script more than once? Yes. We run each test multiple times: once for each position where we could interrupt the parser. > You should add a comment next to m_token as to why we need to hold it as a member. Ok. > isEndTagBufferingState is almost big enough to justify using a hash. Unclear. A hash? That seems like overkill for eight branches. > Ok, so I love the patch. My big concern is the test. Why is this forked from runner/webkit_runner. Can we just add this functionality to one of those, or does this need to be a copy of the javascript forever? Well, once we get external scripts working, we can pull out all the common bits into external JavaScript files. ;) Comment on attachment 57122 [details]
Patch
OK. r+ with revision then. :)
Committed r60253: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60253> |