REGRESSIONS js1_5/Regress/regress-96526-003.js js1_8/extensions/regress-422269.js js1_8/genexps/regress-380237-01.js js1_8_5/extensions/findReferences-01.js js1_8_5/extensions/findReferences-02.js js1_8_5/extensions/findReferences-03.js js1_8_5/extensions/findReferences-04.js

findReferences always crashes now. The first bad revision is: changeset: 81246:ff51ddfdf5d1 parent: 77573:44ef245b8706 user: Brian Hackett <bhackett1024@gmail.com> date: Wed Sep 28 15:04:55 2011 -0700 summary: Remove shape numbers and Shape::slotSpan, factor Shape getter/setter into BaseShape, bug 684505.

It was previously possible to get output containing the property id for getters and setters, but it seems this is no longer feasible, since the graph is like this: shape -> propid shape -> base -> getter I think multiple properties with different names can share 'base'.

The above patch does not solve the problems with js1_5/Regress/regress-96526-003.js js1_8/extensions/regress-422269.js js1_8/genexps/regress-380237-01.js all of which seem to be older issues, and perhaps only happen on Mac with the new compiler.

So is the bug here that MarkChildren is passing PrintPropertyGetterOrSetter, which expects the debugArg to be a Shape *, but supplying a BaseShape * instead?

findReferences should just report the graph edges that the GC gives it; it needn't jump through hoops to try to get getter/setter names. So getting 'shape; base; getter' instead of 'shape; foo getter' is totally fine.

(In reply to Jim Blandy :jimb from comment #7) > So is the bug here that MarkChildren is passing PrintPropertyGetterOrSetter, > which expects the debugArg to be a Shape *, but supplying a BaseShape * > instead? Yes. However, since the BaseShape doesn't have the information PrintPropertyGetterOrSetter used to print, there's no point using a debugPrinter function there at all. (In reply to Jim Blandy :jimb from comment #8) > findReferences should just report the graph edges that the GC gives it; it > needn't jump through hoops to try to get getter/setter names. Great.

Comment on attachment 579876 [details] [diff] [review] v1 Review of attachment 579876 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Splendid, splendid. Thanks for sorting this out!

Changing the description to be more specific. The rest of the failing tests will have to get their own bugs. I made one for the "too much recursion" stuff. In fact I made two, but bug 708862 is the better report.