Bug 39755

Summary: Make HTML5 lexer not ASSERT when resuming partial parses
Product: WebKit Reporter: Adam Barth <abarth>
Component: New BugsAssignee: Adam Barth <abarth>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: eric
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Other   
OS: OS X 10.5   
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 39259    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch eric: review+

Adam Barth
Reported 2010-05-26 11:31:11 PDT
Make HTML5 lexer not ASSERT when resuming partial parses
Attachments
Patch (38.85 KB, patch)
2010-05-26 11:43 PDT, Adam Barth
eric: review+
Adam Barth
Comment 1 2010-05-26 11:43:23 PDT
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 2 2010-05-26 12:26:54 PDT
Comment on attachment 57122 [details] Patch This is an excellent test to have. However, I'm confused by the output. Are we running each script more than once? You should add a comment next to m_token as to why we need to hold it as a member. isEndTagBufferingState is almost big enough to justify using a hash. Unclear. Ok, so I love the patch. My big concern is the test. Why is this forked from runner/webkit_runner. Can we just add this functionality to one of those, or does this need to be a copy of the javascript forever? r- for the above nits.
Adam Barth
Comment 3 2010-05-26 13:02:39 PDT
> This is an excellent test to have. However, I'm confused by the output. Are we running each script more than once? Yes. We run each test multiple times: once for each position where we could interrupt the parser. > You should add a comment next to m_token as to why we need to hold it as a member. Ok. > isEndTagBufferingState is almost big enough to justify using a hash. Unclear. A hash? That seems like overkill for eight branches. > Ok, so I love the patch. My big concern is the test. Why is this forked from runner/webkit_runner. Can we just add this functionality to one of those, or does this need to be a copy of the javascript forever? Well, once we get external scripts working, we can pull out all the common bits into external JavaScript files. ;)
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 4 2010-05-26 13:32:57 PDT
Comment on attachment 57122 [details] Patch OK. r+ with revision then. :)
Adam Barth
Comment 5 2010-05-26 14:51:12 PDT
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.