RESOLVED FIXED39877
[Chromium] get rid of named interceptor on HTMLDocument and introduce/remove accessors when named items get deleted/removed
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39877
Summary [Chromium] get rid of named interceptor on HTMLDocument and introduce/remove ...
anton muhin
Reported 2010-05-28 06:57:35 PDT
[Chromium] get rid of named interceptor on HTMLDocument and introduce/remove accessors when named items get deleted/removed
Attachments
Patch (15.64 KB, patch)
2010-05-28 07:07 PDT, anton muhin
no flags
Another upload to trigger build bots (15.64 KB, patch)
2010-05-28 07:41 PDT, anton muhin
no flags
With Chromium rolled forward (16.02 KB, patch)
2010-05-28 10:25 PDT, anton muhin
no flags
Addressing comments (16.30 KB, patch)
2010-05-31 09:08 PDT, anton muhin
no flags
For cq+ with reviewed by (16.30 KB, patch)
2010-06-01 04:10 PDT, anton muhin
no flags
To run through build bots another time (15.92 KB, patch)
2010-06-03 09:31 PDT, anton muhin
no flags
anton muhin
Comment 1 2010-05-28 07:07:27 PDT
anton muhin
Comment 2 2010-05-28 07:41:49 PDT
Created attachment 57330 [details] Another upload to trigger build bots
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 3 2010-05-28 08:34:35 PDT
anton muhin
Comment 4 2010-05-28 08:43:32 PDT
(In reply to comment #3) > Attachment 57330 [details] did not build on chromium: > Build output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/2600031 This is a lie :) V8 has been already rolled, but probably lags on bbs.
David Levin
Comment 5 2010-05-28 10:18:17 PDT
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Attachment 57330 [details] [details] did not build on chromium: > > Build output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/2600031 > > This is a lie :) V8 has been already rolled, but probably lags on bbs. That is a lie. This change does break the webkit build of chromium. :) You need to change the chromium deps file in webkit (WebKit/chromium/DEPS) to point to a newer version of the chromium repository and that will pick up the new revision of v8.
David Levin
Comment 6 2010-05-28 10:18:34 PDT
Comment on attachment 57330 [details] Another upload to trigger build bots Busted build.
anton muhin
Comment 7 2010-05-28 10:21:59 PDT
(In reply to comment #6) > (From update of attachment 57330 [details]) > Busted build. David, please, see comment 5 (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39877#c5): bbs haven't rolled v8 yet, while it's already in Chromium's trunk.
anton muhin
Comment 8 2010-05-28 10:23:06 PDT
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (From update of attachment 57330 [details] [details]) > > Busted build. > > David, please, see comment 5 (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39877#c5): bbs haven't rolled v8 yet, while it's already in Chromium's trunk. Sorry, I pointed out your comment to you which was stupid, sorry again.
anton muhin
Comment 9 2010-05-28 10:25:44 PDT
Created attachment 57340 [details] With Chromium rolled forward
anton muhin
Comment 10 2010-05-28 10:26:51 PDT
New patch (with Chromium rolled forward) uploaded. Should I make a separate patch out of this Chromium's rolling? What's the procedure of Chromium-in-WebKit rolling?
David Levin
Comment 11 2010-05-28 10:28:59 PDT
(In reply to comment #10) > New patch (with Chromium rolled forward) uploaded. Should I make a separate patch out of this Chromium's rolling? What's the procedure of Chromium-in-WebKit rolling? So far I think we roll it with the change that requires it (which helps their patch to build also!), so this is great. (In general, I don't think it gets rolled unless someone needs it.)
anton muhin
Comment 12 2010-05-28 10:30:32 PDT
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > New patch (with Chromium rolled forward) uploaded. Should I make a separate patch out of this Chromium's rolling? What's the procedure of Chromium-in-WebKit rolling? > > So far I think we roll it with the change that requires it (which helps their patch to build also!), so this is great. > (In general, I don't think it gets rolled unless someone needs it.) I see, thanks a lot for clarifications.
Adam Barth
Comment 13 2010-05-28 10:49:52 PDT
The EWS bot isn't smart enough to handle changes to DEPS. It's something we should fix eventually. Sorry for the inconvenience.
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 14 2010-05-28 11:08:00 PDT
anton muhin
Comment 15 2010-05-28 11:29:00 PDT
I need your assistance here. I thought that my change to DEPS is enough as V8 was rolled before this revision (see https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39877#c5). I doubled checked that this version includes change I depend on. Was my change to DEPS enough? Is there a way to find out at which revision v8 on bb is?
Adam Barth
Comment 16 2010-05-28 11:33:13 PDT
From http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/chromium/DEPS#L73 it seems we grab the V8 version from the Chromium DEPS file at this rev: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/chromium/DEPS#L35 Maybe we need to bump that number to get the updated V8 number? (The EWS bot is too dumb to understand that, but Levin is probably smart enough to. :) )
anton muhin
Comment 17 2010-05-28 11:35:38 PDT
(In reply to comment #16) > From http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/chromium/DEPS#L73 it seems we grab the V8 version from the Chromium DEPS file at this rev: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/chromium/DEPS#L35 > > Maybe we need to bump that number to get the updated V8 number? (The EWS bot is too dumb to understand that, but Levin is probably smart enough to. :) ) Which number? Relevant part apparently looks like: 72 # v8 javascript engine 73 'v8': From('chromium_deps', 'src/v8'), 74 I could put the right number here, but will it be a correct thing to do?
Adam Barth
Comment 18 2010-05-28 11:46:22 PDT
> Which number? Relevant part apparently looks like: The number on this line: http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/chromium/DEPS#L35
anton muhin
Comment 19 2010-05-28 11:49:13 PDT
(In reply to comment #18) > > Which number? Relevant part apparently looks like: > > The number on this line: > > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebKit/chromium/DEPS#L35 I think that's exactly the line I change.
Adam Barth
Comment 20 2010-05-28 11:55:53 PDT
Ah, I see. Yeah, the bot just doesn't understand changes to DEPS.
David Levin
Comment 21 2010-05-28 12:21:25 PDT
Adding Nate as an attempt to get him to review it. (I only wanted to get the DEPS change in here.) Passing comment: Maybe this if (document->isHTMLDocument()) ASSERT(V8Document::toNative(v8::Handle<v8::Object>::Cast(wrapper->GetPrototype())) == document); should be ASSERT(!document->isHTMLDocument() || V8Document::toNative(v8::Handle<v8::Object>::Cast(wrapper->GetPrototype())) == document); to ensure that no code is generated for it in !debug builds.
Nate Chapin
Comment 22 2010-05-28 12:40:56 PDT
Comment on attachment 57340 [details] With Chromium rolled forward r+ with nits. > + // TODO(antonm): consider passing AtomicStringImpl directly. FIXME instead of TODO. > + // Just emulate a normal JS behaviour---install a property on this. > + // Potential problem---something with the setter below---let's hope that's not the case. > + info.This()->ForceSet(name, value); This comment confuses me a little. Is the potential problem that we might have already set another value to this name? Should we have an ASSERT or error handling? I just get nervous when I see a comment that includes the phrase "let's hope" :) > - wrapper->SetInternalField(V8HTMLDocument::markerIndex, marker); > - wrapper->SetInternalField(V8HTMLDocument::shadowIndex, marker); I think markerIndex and shadowIndex are now unused, so they should be removed from GetInternalFields() in CodeGeneratorV8.pm.
anton muhin
Comment 23 2010-05-31 09:08:50 PDT
Created attachment 57475 [details] Addressing comments
anton muhin
Comment 24 2010-05-31 09:11:33 PDT
(In reply to comment #23) > Created an attachment (id=57475) [details] > Addressing comments David and Nate, thanks a lot for review. Hopefully, I've addressed all the issues. And sorry I've uploaded new version with r?---I'd like to have another run though build bots. If you could quickly check it and r+ it, that'd be most appreciated. Otherwise I'd probably upload it with reviewed filled and cq+.
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 25 2010-05-31 09:30:45 PDT
anton muhin
Comment 26 2010-06-01 04:10:13 PDT
Created attachment 57528 [details] For cq+ with reviewed by
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 27 2010-06-01 04:31:06 PDT
Comment on attachment 57528 [details] For cq+ with reviewed by Clearing flags on attachment: 57528 Committed r60470: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60470>
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 28 2010-06-01 04:31:14 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 29 2010-06-01 11:26:43 PDT
Reopening since this was rolled out.
anton muhin
Comment 30 2010-06-03 09:31:43 PDT
Created attachment 57780 [details] To run through build bots another time
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 31 2010-06-04 02:58:18 PDT
Comment on attachment 57780 [details] To run through build bots another time Clearing flags on attachment: 57780 Committed r60670: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60670>
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 32 2010-06-04 02:58:26 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 33 2010-06-04 03:22:50 PDT
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60670 might have broken GTK Linux 32-bit Release The following changes are on the blame list: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60669 http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60670
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.