Skip to content

deps: V8: fix backtrace for symbols #10732

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ofrobots
Copy link
Contributor

@ofrobots ofrobots commented Jan 11, 2017

The cherry-pick of #7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in #9298 wasn't quite correct as it depends on a runtime function %SymbolDescriptiveString that doesn't exist on v4.x (V8 4.5). We can use %SymbolDescription instead.

It seems that the V8-CI was missed when when the #7612 was backported to v4.x so we didn't catch it at that point. At this point however, the V8-CI is no longer passing because of the V8 test failures caused by the above.

R=@hashseed, @nodejs/v8
/cc @MylesBorins

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

deps: V8

The cherry-pick of nodejs#7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in nodejs#9298 wasn't quite
correct as it depends on a runtime function %SymbolDescriptiveString
that doesn't exist on v4.x. We can use %SymbolDescription instead.

Ref: nodejs#7612
Ref: nodejs#9298
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added v4.x v8 engine Issues and PRs related to the V8 dependency. labels Jan 11, 2017
Copy link
Member

@indutny indutny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rubber-stamp LGTM

@MylesBorins MylesBorins self-assigned this Jan 11, 2017
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

MylesBorins commented Jan 11, 2017

Thanks so much for digging into this! going to run ci and land this if it is green

ci: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/5806/
V8-ci: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-v8-linux/518/

Copy link
Contributor

@MylesBorins MylesBorins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM with a question.

@@ -1515,7 +1515,7 @@ PropertyMirror.prototype.name = function() {


PropertyMirror.prototype.toText = function() {
if (IS_SYMBOL(this.name_)) return %SymbolDescriptiveString(this.name_);
if (IS_SYMBOL(this.name_)) return %SymbolDescription(this.name_);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the argument be couched in a %_ValueOf(...)? I see other calls to %SymbolDescription() do that but I presume that's for the case when IS_SYMBOL(x) === false && IS_SYMBOL_WRAPPER(x) === true.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. %_ValueOf is only needed for object wrappers around primitives. Being a property key, it cannot be a wrapper here.

@hashseed
Copy link
Member

LGTM.

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2017
The cherry-pick of #7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in #9298 wasn't quite
correct as it depends on a runtime function %SymbolDescriptiveString
that doesn't exist on v4.x. We can use %SymbolDescription instead.

Ref: #7612
Ref: #9298

PR-URL: #10732
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

landed in 2677b9b

MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2017
The cherry-pick of #7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in #9298 wasn't quite
correct as it depends on a runtime function %SymbolDescriptiveString
that doesn't exist on v4.x. We can use %SymbolDescription instead.

Ref: #7612
Ref: #9298

PR-URL: #10732
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2017
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2017
The cherry-pick of #7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in #9298 wasn't quite
correct as it depends on a runtime function %SymbolDescriptiveString
that doesn't exist on v4.x. We can use %SymbolDescription instead.

Ref: #7612
Ref: #9298

PR-URL: #10732
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
gibfahn pushed a commit to ibmruntimes/node that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2017
The cherry-pick of nodejs#7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in nodejs#9298 wasn't quite
correct as it depends on a runtime function %SymbolDescriptiveString
that doesn't exist on v4.x. We can use %SymbolDescription instead.

Ref: nodejs/node#7612
Ref: nodejs/node#9298

PR-URL: nodejs/node#10732
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
v8 engine Issues and PRs related to the V8 dependency.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants