WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Search+
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED FIXED
206141
[WebCore] Reorganize JSType in WebCore to offer more bits to JSC
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206141
Summary
[WebCore] Reorganize JSType in WebCore to offer more bits to JSC
Yusuke Suzuki
Reported
2020-01-12 01:55:35 PST
[WebCore] Reorganize JSType in WebCore to offer more bits to JSC
Attachments
Patch
(6.62 KB, patch)
2020-01-12 01:56 PST
,
Yusuke Suzuki
keith_miller
: review+
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Yusuke Suzuki
Comment 1
2020-01-12 01:56:12 PST
Created
attachment 387464
[details]
Patch
Keith Miller
Comment 2
2020-01-12 11:09:03 PST
Comment on
attachment 387464
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=387464&action=review
r=me. We have 128 types these days?!? O.o
> Source/WebCore/bindings/js/JSDOMWrapper.h:32 > // JSC allows us to extend JSType. If the highest bit is set, we can add any Object types and they are
Can you fix this comment to match the new rule.
Yusuke Suzuki
Comment 3
2020-01-12 14:41:24 PST
Comment on
attachment 387464
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=387464&action=review
>> Source/WebCore/bindings/js/JSDOMWrapper.h:32 >> // JSC allows us to extend JSType. If the highest bit is set, we can add any Object types and they are > > Can you fix this comment to match the new rule.
Fixed.
Yusuke Suzuki
Comment 4
2020-01-12 14:42:57 PST
Committed
r254416
: <
https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/254416
>
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 5
2020-01-12 14:43:11 PST
<
rdar://problem/58515054
>
Mark Lam
Comment 6
2020-01-12 16:03:35 PST
Comment on
attachment 387464
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=387464&action=review
> Source/JavaScriptCore/runtime/JSType.h:140 > +static_assert(LastJSCObjectType < 0b11100000, "Embedder can use 0b11100000 or upper.");
I think you meant to say "above" instead of "upper".
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug