deps: V8: fix backtrace for symbols #10732
Closed
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
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 added v4.x v8 engine 
jasnell approved these changes Jan 11, 2017
Contributor
| 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/ |
targos approved these changes Jan 11, 2017
bnoordhuis approved these changes Jan 11, 2017
| | ||
| PropertyMirror.prototype.toText = function() { | ||
| if (IS_SYMBOL(this.name_)) return %SymbolDescriptiveString(this.name_); | ||
| if (IS_SYMBOL(this.name_)) return %SymbolDescription(this.name_); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. %_ValueOf is only needed for object wrappers around primitives. Being a property key, it cannot be a wrapper here.
Member
| LGTM. |
cjihrig approved these changes Jan 11, 2017
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>
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>
Merged
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>
3 tasks
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>
This was referenced Nov 28, 2023
This was referenced Nov 29, 2023
This was referenced Nov 29, 2023
This was referenced Nov 30, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
9 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The cherry-pick of #7612 to v4.x (4369055) added in #9298 wasn't quite correct as it depends on a runtime function
%SymbolDescriptiveStringthat doesn't exist on v4.x (V8 4.5). We can use%SymbolDescriptioninstead.It seems that the V8-CI was missed when when the #7612 was backported to
v4.xso 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), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
deps: V8