I will try to look into ARM, and if it's not an advantage there, and ok with Ivan, I will remove ARM jump elimination also.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Kasper Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given the complexity of the code and the very small benefit it gives > us, this change certainly LGTM. As you say, we should probably do the > same on ARM. > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:07 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Reviewers: Kasper Lund, iposva, >> >> Message: >> I realize I should probably look at ARM also, remove the jump >> elimination flag all together, or make it ARM specific. I just wanted >> to wait until I got some initial feedback, maybe you think this is a bad >> idea. >> >> The single jump that was being eliminated with this current code was in >> the fast switch code. I didn't track it down all the way, but it might >> be easy to fix statically. Otherwise, it's not a huge deal, we're going >> to save a lot more than 5 bytes with short jumps. >> >> I could try to keep the code and make it work with short jump encoding. >> It just seemed to be a lot of complexity for hardly ever saving a few >> bytes at most in my experiments. >> >> Description: >> Remove x86 jump elimination. This was just complicated enough to make >> it annoying to support short jump encoding. I measured a code size >> increase of 5 bytes on the V8 benchmark, from missing one jump to next >> elimination possibility. >> >> Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/4321 >> >> Affected files: >> M src/assembler-ia32.cc >> M src/assembler-ia32.h >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
