Fix wrong optimization for private fields

Fix wrong optimization for private fields

R=floitsch@google.com

BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=10719

[floitsch, 2012-08-15 11:59:42]

LGTM.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10830331/diff/1/lib/compiler/implement...
File lib/compiler/implementation/ssa/optimize.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10830331/diff/1/lib/compiler/implement...
lib/compiler/implementation/ssa/optimize.dart:566: if (field.getLibrary() !==
work.element.getLibrary()) return node;
why not looking if the field is private?
There should be something like node.name.isPrivate.

[Søren Gjesse, 2012-08-15 12:50:04]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10830331/diff/1/lib/compiler/implementation/ss...
File lib/compiler/implementation/ssa/optimize.dart (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10830331/diff/1/lib/compiler/implementation/ss...
lib/compiler/implementation/ssa/optimize.dart:566: if (field.getLibrary() !==
work.element.getLibrary()) return node;
On 2012/08/15 11:59:42, floitsch wrote:
> why not looking if the field is private?
> There should be something like node.name.isPrivate.

It works if the check is just !node.name.isPrivate(). However that regresses
some benchmarks as it hits broadly.

But thanks to noticing, as the check should still include the
node.name.isPrivate(), as the library check should only be done for private
fields.

[floitsch, 2012-08-15 12:56:34]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10830331/diff/1/lib/compiler/implementation/ss...
File lib/compiler/implementation/ssa/optimize.dart (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10830331/diff/1/lib/compiler/implementation/ss...
lib/compiler/implementation/ssa/optimize.dart:566: if (field.getLibrary() !==
work.element.getLibrary()) return node;
On 2012/08/15 12:50:04, Søren Gjesse wrote:
> On 2012/08/15 11:59:42, floitsch wrote:
> > why not looking if the field is private?
> > There should be something like node.name.isPrivate.
> 
> It works if the check is just !node.name.isPrivate(). However that regresses
> some benchmarks as it hits broadly.
> 
> But thanks to noticing, as the check should still include the
> node.name.isPrivate(), as the library check should only be done for private
> fields.

That's what I meant.