rename node.js -> io.js #42
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
There is no mailing list at that address, and we shouldn't create another one. Perhaps we should link people to the node-forward/help repo instead. @othiym23 thoughts? |
|
@mikeal agree, if there's no ML then no need to create one if it's not going to be used. Better to send to the currently used development comm-tools like the gitter channel it was just created besides the ones already listed in the |
|
@mikeal I don't think we need another Google Group, but people keep using the existing one and are pretty committed to it. I would be happy to keep pointing people at the existing Google Group. I think of it as more of a community resource than one tied to any particular company, but I know you and I don't see eye to eye on this. At the same time, I have no objection to people being directed to node-forward/help, although at some point, we probably need to figure out what to do with node-forward as a whole. I get confused sometimes, and I'm supposedly on top of all of this stuff. |
|
@othiym23 I have opinions but you've been doing the work on moderating all of these places so I'll defer to you :) |
rvagg
force-pushed
the
v0.12
branch
4 times, most recently
from
d7e65ff
to
185d11c
Compare
|
Seems some crossover between here and #32 |
|
Keeping mailing list is good for users, io.js is a node of node.js also :p |
|
So, what's the verdict here? I'm happy to update the mailing list section to reflect whatever ya'll like in order to get this merged. |
|
|
@tkellen If you revert the mailing list change and make the commit log conform to the standard (see CONTRIBUTING.md), I'll land it for you. Thanks. |
Renamed node.js to io.js and updated links to external resources.
|
Done! |
bnoordhuis
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2014
Renamed node.js to io.js and updated links to external resources. PR-URL: #42 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
|
Cheers Tyler, landed in 6c36d19. |
Closed
elprans
pushed a commit
to elprans/node
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2019
blink can not recognize external strings from Node, and it will crash when encountered one, for example executing `window.string_decoder`. Note that the values are still using external strings, but making them normal string may have negative affects on performance, and it is very unlikely they would be passed to blink.
This was referenced Jul 17, 2020
targos
added a commit
to targos/node
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2021
Original commit message:
Merged: [codegen] Skip invalid optimization in tail calls
Preparing for tail call is usually done by emitting the gap moves and
then moving the stack pointer to its new position. An optimization
consists in moving the stack pointer first and transforming some of the
moves into pushes. In the attached case it looks like this (arm):
138 add sp, sp, nodejs#40
13c str r6, [sp, #-4]!
140 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
144 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
148 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
14c str r6, [sp, #-4]!
...
160 vldr d1, [sp - 4*3]
The last line is a gap reload, but because the stack pointer was already
moved, the slot is now below the stack pointer. This is invalid and
triggers this DCHECK:
Fatal error in ../../v8/src/codegen/arm/assembler-arm.cc, line 402
Debug check failed: 0 <= offset (0 vs. -12).
A comment already explains that we skip the optimization if the gap
contains stack moves to prevent this, but the code only checks for
non-FP slots. This is fixed by replacing "source.IsStackSlot()" with
"source.IsAnyStackSlot()":
108 vldr d1, [sp + 4*2]
...
118 str r0, [sp, #+36]
11c str r0, [sp, #+32]
120 str r0, [sp, #+28]
124 str r0, [sp, #+24]
128 str r0, [sp, #+20]
...
134 add sp, sp, nodejs#20
TBR=[email protected]
(cherry picked from commit 7506e063d0d7fb00e4b9c06735c91e1953296867)
Change-Id: I66ed6187755af956e245207e940c83ea0697a5e6
Bug: chromium:1137608
No-Try: true
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/2505976
Reviewed-by: Thibaud Michaud <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Thibaud Michaud <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/branch-heads/8.6@{nodejs#42}
Cr-Branched-From: a64aed2333abf49e494d2a5ce24bbd14fff19f60-refs/heads/8.6.395@{#1}
Cr-Branched-From: a626bc036236c9bf92ac7b87dc40c9e538b087e3-refs/heads/master@{#69472}
Refs: v8/v8@8c725f7
targos
added a commit
to targos/node
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2021
Original commit message:
Merged: [codegen] Skip invalid optimization in tail calls
Preparing for tail call is usually done by emitting the gap moves and
then moving the stack pointer to its new position. An optimization
consists in moving the stack pointer first and transforming some of the
moves into pushes. In the attached case it looks like this (arm):
138 add sp, sp, nodejs#40
13c str r6, [sp, #-4]!
140 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
144 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
148 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
14c str r6, [sp, #-4]!
...
160 vldr d1, [sp - 4*3]
The last line is a gap reload, but because the stack pointer was already
moved, the slot is now below the stack pointer. This is invalid and
triggers this DCHECK:
Fatal error in ../../v8/src/codegen/arm/assembler-arm.cc, line 402
Debug check failed: 0 <= offset (0 vs. -12).
A comment already explains that we skip the optimization if the gap
contains stack moves to prevent this, but the code only checks for
non-FP slots. This is fixed by replacing "source.IsStackSlot()" with
"source.IsAnyStackSlot()":
108 vldr d1, [sp + 4*2]
...
118 str r0, [sp, #+36]
11c str r0, [sp, #+32]
120 str r0, [sp, #+28]
124 str r0, [sp, #+24]
128 str r0, [sp, #+20]
...
134 add sp, sp, nodejs#20
TBR=[email protected]
(cherry picked from commit 7506e063d0d7fb00e4b9c06735c91e1953296867)
Change-Id: I66ed6187755af956e245207e940c83ea0697a5e6
Bug: chromium:1137608
No-Try: true
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/2505976
Reviewed-by: Thibaud Michaud <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Thibaud Michaud <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/branch-heads/8.6@{nodejs#42}
Cr-Branched-From: a64aed2333abf49e494d2a5ce24bbd14fff19f60-refs/heads/8.6.395@{#1}
Cr-Branched-From: a626bc036236c9bf92ac7b87dc40c9e538b087e3-refs/heads/master@{#69472}
Refs: v8/v8@8c725f7
targos
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 30, 2021
Original commit message:
Merged: [codegen] Skip invalid optimization in tail calls
Preparing for tail call is usually done by emitting the gap moves and
then moving the stack pointer to its new position. An optimization
consists in moving the stack pointer first and transforming some of the
moves into pushes. In the attached case it looks like this (arm):
138 add sp, sp, #40
13c str r6, [sp, #-4]!
140 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
144 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
148 str r6, [sp, #-4]!
14c str r6, [sp, #-4]!
...
160 vldr d1, [sp - 4*3]
The last line is a gap reload, but because the stack pointer was already
moved, the slot is now below the stack pointer. This is invalid and
triggers this DCHECK:
Fatal error in ../../v8/src/codegen/arm/assembler-arm.cc, line 402
Debug check failed: 0 <= offset (0 vs. -12).
A comment already explains that we skip the optimization if the gap
contains stack moves to prevent this, but the code only checks for
non-FP slots. This is fixed by replacing "source.IsStackSlot()" with
"source.IsAnyStackSlot()":
108 vldr d1, [sp + 4*2]
...
118 str r0, [sp, #+36]
11c str r0, [sp, #+32]
120 str r0, [sp, #+28]
124 str r0, [sp, #+24]
128 str r0, [sp, #+20]
...
134 add sp, sp, #20
TBR=[email protected]
(cherry picked from commit 7506e063d0d7fb00e4b9c06735c91e1953296867)
Change-Id: I66ed6187755af956e245207e940c83ea0697a5e6
Bug: chromium:1137608
No-Try: true
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/2505976
Reviewed-by: Thibaud Michaud <[email protected]>
Commit-Queue: Thibaud Michaud <[email protected]>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/branch-heads/8.6@{#42}
Cr-Branched-From: a64aed2333abf49e494d2a5ce24bbd14fff19f60-refs/heads/8.6.395@{#1}
Cr-Branched-From: a626bc036236c9bf92ac7b87dc40c9e538b087e3-refs/heads/master@{#69472}
Refs: v8/v8@8c725f7
PR-URL: #38275
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Jiawen Geng <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Shelley Vohr <[email protected]>
5 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This updates CONTRIBUTING.md to reference io.js, not node.js. One question though: will we be using the same google group, or should a new one be created?