Closed Bug 883630 Opened 11 years ago Closed 11 years ago

Assertion failure: hasScript(), at jsfun.h

Categories

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

x86_64
macOS
defect
Not set
critical

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla24

People

(Reporter: gkw, Assigned: bhackett1024)

References

Details

(Keywords: assertion, regression, testcase, Whiteboard: [jsbugmon:update])

Attachments

(2 files)

Attached file stack (deleted) —
a = b = c = d = [] e = f = g = h = i = j = k = a[6] = {} function x() {} v = [] for (var p in this) { Array.prototype.some.call(a, (function() { y = Uint8ClampedArray.z })) } asserts js debug shell on m-c changeset 36da3cb92193 without any CLI arguments at Assertion failure: hasScript(), at jsfun.h autoBisect shows this is probably related to the following changeset: The first bad revision is: changeset: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ce43d28276e4 user: Brian Hackett date: Fri Jun 14 05:58:28 2013 -0600 summary: Bug 678037 - Enable lazy JS parsing and fix various bugs, r=waldo,evilpie,nobody.
Flags: needinfo?(bhackett1024)
Attached patch patch (deleted) — Splinter Review
When iterating over inlined Ion frames, the callee function may be lazily interpreted. The script will exist, and the function just needs to be repointed to it. This patch also cleans up some metastasis in the methods for getting scripts off functions, and adds a comment on how to use the remaining methods.
Assignee: general → bhackett1024
Attachment #763237 - Flags: review?(luke)
Flags: needinfo?(bhackett1024)
Blocks: 883560
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla24
Comment on attachment 763237 [details] [diff] [review] patch Review of attachment 763237 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: js/src/jsfun.h @@ +242,5 @@ > JS_ASSERT(hasScript()); > return u.i.s.script_; > } > > + inline JSScript *getExistingScript(); The usual naming convention is that "getX" means that the operation is fallible. This one isn't, so could you name it "existingScript()"?
Attachment #763237 - Flags: review?(luke) → review+
Depends on: 883973
(In reply to Luke Wagner [:luke] from comment #4) > The usual naming convention is that "getX" means that the operation is > fallible. This one isn't, so could you name it "existingScript()"? Setting needinfo so this todo doesn't get lost.
Flags: needinfo?(bhackett1024)
Depends on: 884194
No longer depends on: 883973
The function was renamed separately.
Flags: needinfo?(bhackett1024)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: