Closed Bug 328007 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

[FIX]root new function objects before JS_DefineUCProperty

Categories

(Core :: XBL, defect, P1)

Product:
Core
Component:
XBL
Type:
defect

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
mozilla1.9alpha1

People

(Reporter: dbaron, Assigned: bzbarsky)

References

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.8.0.4, fixed1.8.1)

Attachments

(1 file)

Patch
(deleted), patch
sicking
: review+
brendan
: superreview+
sicking
: approval-branch-1.8.1+
darin.moz
: approval1.8.0.4+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
In bug 327712 comment 4, bz wrote: > but we need similar changes to root newly-cloned function > objects across JS_DefineUCProperty in nsXBLProtoImplMethod::InstallMember and > the code added in bug 307040.
Attached patch Patch (deleted) — — Splinter Review
Assignee: general → bzbarsky
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #214151 - Flags: superreview?(brendan)
Attachment #214151 - Flags: review?(bugmail)
Priority: -- → P1
Summary: root new function objects before JS_DefineUCProperty → [FIX]root new function objects before JS_DefineUCProperty
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9alpha
Comment on attachment 214151 [details] [diff] [review] Patch If there's a cx in scope, we should pass it into the autoroot thingie as an optional trailing parameter. Then the impl of that could use a more efficient JS-level rooting technique. For short-term block-scoped rooting there is no need to lock the runtime's GC state and add and delete an entry in the global root double-hashtable (although that almost always doesn't allocate -- but the locking hurts). Followup bug? Or here -- your call. /be
Attachment #214151 - Flags: superreview?(brendan) → superreview+
I'd prefer a followup. What API should I be using if we have a cx? I think we always have one when using nsAutoGCRoot.
Fixed. Filed bug 332648 as the followup.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment on attachment 214151 [details] [diff] [review] Patch We probably want this on branches. This should be quite safe, and GC fixes seem to be a good idea...
Attachment #214151 - Flags: approval1.8.0.3?
Attachment #214151 - Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(bugmail)
Comment on attachment 214151 [details] [diff] [review] Patch go for it
Attachment #214151 - Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(bugmail) → approval-branch-1.8.1+
Fixed on 1.8.1 branch.
Keywords: fixed1.8.1
Flags: blocking1.8.0.3+
Comment on attachment 214151 [details] [diff] [review] Patch a=darin for 1.8.0.3 (on behalf of drivers)
Attachment #214151 - Flags: approval1.8.0.3? → approval1.8.0.3+
Fixed on 1.8.0 branch.
Keywords: fixed1.8.0.3
Flags: blocking1.7.14?
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0.9?
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: