Bug 115576 – There should be a runtime option to constrain what functions get DFG compiled

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

[Michael Saboff]

Often when debugging a problem in the DFG, one wants to constrain DFG compilation down to one function.  Usually this can be done by checking the bytecode count of the code block by adding an if statement at the top of compile() in DFGDriver.cpp.  This should be done through an runtime option.

[Michael Saboff]

Created attachment 200504 [details]
Patch

[WebKit Commit Bot]

Attachment 200504 [details] did not pass style-queue:

Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog', u'Source/JavaScriptCore/dfg/DFGDriver.cpp', u'Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/Options.cpp', u'Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/Options.h']" exit_code: 1
Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/Options.h:220:  enum members should use InterCaps with an initial capital letter.  [readability/enum_casing] [4]
Total errors found: 1 in 4 files


If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

[Mark Hahnenberg]

Comment on attachment 200504 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=200504&action=review

r=me with comments.

> Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/Options.cpp:75
> +static bool parse(const char* string, optionRange& value)

Does it work correctly if you use OptionRange& here instead of the typedef? I know there are some subtleties with how the macros automatically generate stuff, but I dislike how this looks.

[Michael Saboff]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (From update of attachment 200504 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=200504&action=review
> 
> r=me with comments.
> 
> > Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/Options.cpp:75
> > +static bool parse(const char* string, optionRange& value)
> 
> Does it work correctly if you use OptionRange& here instead of the typedef? I know there are some subtleties with how the macros automatically generate stuff, but I dislike how this looks.

We can use OptionRange& here.  The typedef was put in so the enum and union type work with the FOR_EACH_OPTION macros.

[Michael Saboff]

Comment on attachment 200504 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=200504&action=review

>>> Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/Options.cpp:75
>>> +static bool parse(const char* string, optionRange& value)
>> 
>> Does it work correctly if you use OptionRange& here instead of the typedef? I know there are some subtleties with how the macros automatically generate stuff, but I dislike how this looks.
> 
> We can use OptionRange& here.  The typedef was put in so the enum and union type work with the FOR_EACH_OPTION macros.

We can use OptionRange here.  The typedef was put in for the enum and type within the union.

[Michael Saboff]

Clearing flags on attachment: 200504

Committed r149552: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/149552>

[Michael Saboff]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.