Refactor the way we emit no such method handlers so it's easier to optimize it later.

Refactor the way we emit no such method handlers so it's easier to optimize it later.

Avoid adding duplicate JavaScript functions (may occur if we have
multiple different typed selectors in play or if the same library
shows up multiple times in the library map).

R=floitsch@google.com
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=10162

[floitsch, 2012-08-02 11:21:51]

LGTM!

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10832109/diff/1/lib/compiler/implement...
File lib/compiler/implementation/emitter.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10832109/diff/1/lib/compiler/implement...
lib/compiler/implementation/emitter.dart:906: // without taking the selector
(arity) into account. Needs more
Investigated it. The following code works on the VM, but not in dart2js.

class A {
  noSuchMethod(x, y) { print(x); }
}

main() {
  var a = new A();
  a.toString("foo", "bar");
}

[kasperl, 2012-08-02 12:53:16]

Updated implementation to make use of type information in typed selectors and
where private names are actually used from to cut down on the overhead
introduced by NSM handling. PTAL.

[floitsch, 2012-08-02 13:13:48]

Still LGTM.

[ahe, 2012-08-02 17:15:05]

FYI

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10832109/diff/1004/lib/compiler/implem...
File lib/compiler/implementation/world.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10832109/diff/1004/lib/compiler/implem...
lib/compiler/implementation/world.dart:79: bool
mayHaveUserDefinedNoSuchMethod(Type type) {
We should consider this class as "delete-only" as it should be superseded by
Enqueuer :-)

[kasperl, 2012-08-03 05:21:00]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10832109/diff/1004/lib/compiler/implem...
File lib/compiler/implementation/world.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10832109/diff/1004/lib/compiler/implem...
lib/compiler/implementation/world.dart:79: bool
mayHaveUserDefinedNoSuchMethod(Type type) {
On 2012/08/02 17:15:05, ahe wrote:
> We should consider this class as "delete-only" as it should be superseded by
> Enqueuer :-)

Yeah, that's probably better.