Bug 109978 – Structure should be more methodical about the relationship between m_offset and m_propertyTable

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: JavaScriptCore

[Filip Pizlo]

Allegedly, the previous relationship was that either m_propertyTable or m_offset would be set, and if m_propertyTable was not set you could rebuild it.  In reality, we would sometimes "reset" both: some transitions wouldn't set m_offset, and other transitions would clear the previous structure's m_propertyTable.  So, in a structure transition chain of A->B->C you could have:

A transitions to B: B doesn't copy m_offset but does copy m_propertyTable, because that seemed like a good idea at the time.
B transitions to C: C steals B's m_propertyTable, leaving B with neither a m_propertyTable nor a m_offset.

Then we would ask for the size of the property storage of B and get the answer "none".  We would then crash in hilarious ways.

Now, allegedly, there is a new relationship, which, hypothetically, should fix things: m_offset is always set and always refers to the maximum offset ever used by the property table.  From this, you can infer both the inline and out-of-line property size, and capacity.  This is accomplished by having PropertyTable::add() take a PropertyOffset reference, which must be Structure::m_offset.  It will update this offset.  As well, all transitions now copy m_offset.  And we frequently assert (using RELEASE_ASSERT) that the m_offset matches what m_propertyTable would tell you.  Hence if you ever modify the m_propertyTable, you'll also update the offset.  If you ever copy the property table, you'll also copy the offset.  Life should be good, I think.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 188654 [details]
the patch

[Mark Hahnenberg]

Comment on attachment 188654 [details]
the patch

r=me

[Filip Pizlo]

Landed in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/143097