...
Created attachment 231649 [details] it begins Saving my work while I work on one of the required bits in a separate bug: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133042
Created attachment 231661 [details] work in progress
Created attachment 231662 [details] done?
Created attachment 231671 [details] more...
Created attachment 231672 [details] omg it compiles
Created attachment 231713 [details] "getting" there
Created attachment 231748 [details] it's back to compiling
I'll go ahead and do just the getter part separately, in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133105
What is left is to extend this functionality to setters.
Created attachment 234056 [details] it begins (setter inlining)
Created attachment 234065 [details] more!
Created attachment 234105 [details] the code has been written
Created attachment 234139 [details] it compiles
Created attachment 234193 [details] the patch
Comment on attachment 234193 [details] the patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=234193&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/tests/stress/weird-setter-counter.js:20 > + var o = {}; > + o.__defineSetter__("f", function(value) { While it logically shouldn't matter could you also add tests using {set f(value) { ... }} just to make sure we're not doing anything substantially different?
(In reply to comment #15) > (From update of attachment 234193 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=234193&action=review > > > Source/JavaScriptCore/tests/stress/weird-setter-counter.js:20 > > + var o = {}; > > + o.__defineSetter__("f", function(value) { > > While it logically shouldn't matter could you also add tests using {set f(value) { ... }} just to make sure we're not doing anything substantially different? That makes sense. How about I just replicate weird-setter-counter in this way, since if I replicate all of the tests in this way then we'll have too much overlapping coverage.
Landed in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/170672