This change is in preparation for adding 8-bit string support. Two flag bits are needed in StringImpl for 8 bit string support.
Created attachment 112551 [details] Proposed patch
Comment on attachment 112551 [details] Proposed patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=112551&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:9 > + Increased the number of bits used for flags in StringImpl > + from 6 to 8 bits. Updated hash methods accordingly. > + Changed hash value masking from the low bits to the high > + bits. This should say why. “This frees up 2 bits that we will be using for 8-bit string support.”
Committed r98495: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/98495>
It appears that the following tests started failing after this patch: http/tests/inspector/search/search-in-resources.html inspector/storage-panel-dom-storage.html It's totally unclear why this patch can possibly cause these tests to fail.
http://build.webkit.org/results/SnowLeopard%20Intel%20Release%20(Tests)/r98530%20(34228)/results.html FYI, I've manually bisected on my SL machine using Apple's Mac port.
I'm sorry to tell you this 11 hours after your patch was landed but svn server was down for the whole day, bots were unstable, etc... and I could not figure it out earlier :(
I can confirm that it broke fast/dom/prototype-inheritance-2.html and inspector/storage-panel-dom-storage.html on the Qt platform too. (with manual bisecting because of svn break)
(In reply to comment #7) > I can confirm that it broke fast/dom/prototype-inheritance-2.html and inspector/storage-panel-dom-storage.html on the Qt platform too. (with manual bisecting because of svn break) Only fast/dom/prototype-inheritance-2.html, other test failed because of https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70985
My impression is that the changed hash codes changed the order of items in some tables. Probably these tests need a rebaseline.
(In reply to comment #9) > My impression is that the changed hash codes changed the order of items in some tables. Probably these tests need a rebaseline. Indeed.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > My impression is that the changed hash codes changed the order of items in some tables. Probably these tests need a rebaseline. > > Indeed. http://build.webkit.org/results/SnowLeopard%20Intel%20Release%20%28Tests%29/r98530%20%2834228%29/fast/dom/prototype-inheritance-2-pretty-diff.html Why is it order problem?
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > My impression is that the changed hash codes changed the order of items in some tables. Probably these tests need a rebaseline. > > > > Indeed. > > http://build.webkit.org/results/SnowLeopard%20Intel%20Release%20%28Tests%29/r98530%20%2834228%29/fast/dom/prototype-inheritance-2-pretty-diff.html > > Why is it order problem? I believe that is just how that test works. Its results are dependent on what happened earlier in the test.
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > > My impression is that the changed hash codes changed the order of items in some tables. Probably these tests need a rebaseline. > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > http://build.webkit.org/results/SnowLeopard%20Intel%20Release%20%28Tests%29/r98530%20%2834228%29/fast/dom/prototype-inheritance-2-pretty-diff.html > > > > Why is it order problem? > > I believe that is just how that test works. Its results are dependent on what happened earlier in the test. Patch for review with baseline changes to tests in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71058 (https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=112792&action=review).