Move function objects to be lambda based. #1899
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
V8 Benchmarks seem good, no significant regressions. I'll try running the SpiderMonkey and micro other benchmarks tonight, and then tidy things up. |
rbri
reviewed
May 12, 2025
| @@ -486,7 +487,7 @@ public String getClassName() { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private Scriptable buildScope(Context cx, Test262Case testCase, boolean interpretedMode) { | |||
| ScriptableObject scope = cx.initSafeStandardObjects(); | |||
| ScriptableObject scope = (ScriptableObject) cx.initSafeStandardObjects(new TopLevel()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about making a separate PR out of this change together with the test262.properties update.
This will make it simpler to understand the impact of this change and not to mix it with the lambda stuff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure. What I might do is stack them so it's the 262 change first, and then the move to lambda so any effect on the generator function tests is obvious.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so it's the 262 change first
@aardvark179 great, i think we can merge that as soon as you have it to not block the rest
d5e84da to
2bb36d2
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Creating this as a draft. I noticed there are some test262 tests we should pass, but hadn't been picked up by
-DupdateTest262propertiesbecause their lines were marked with~in the properties file. I'll deal with some of those before moving this from draft status.