http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49
File src/register-allocator.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49#newcode56
Line 56: bool is_known() const { return static_type_ != UNKNOWN_TYPE; }
No, we don't. It's a leftover from when I tried merging SmiAnalysis and
StaticType. The only one that is actually use is is_string().

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49#newcode58
Line 58: bool is_likely_smi() const { return static_type_ &
LIKELY_SMI_TYPE != 0; }
Yes, and it won't compile on Windows without the parentheses, so they
will be added.

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49#newcode62
Line 62: return static_type_ & HEAP_OBJECT_TYPE != 0;
Yes, too.

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49#newcode100
Line 100: STRING_TYPE = 12
The comments should be removed completely, they are no longer accurate.
Alignment ... hmm, I'll try it out and see if it improves readability.

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49#newcode105
Line 105: byte static_type_;
We know that the compiler will make a layout that has room for
everything. I decided to trust it :)
A byte should be sufficient here (and sizeof(StaticType) is actually 1),
and should make it easier to add it to other structures without
increasing their size.

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052/diff/40/49#newcode196
Line 196:
I *expect* static_type and type_ to be byte aligned, and the following
union to be word aligned, i.e., there is two bytes of padding between
them.
Not reducing the size of type_ would make objects require three words
(to be word aligned) with three bytes of padding.

There is nothing in the C++ spec preventing the compiler from making
objects take up six bytes and be byte aligned, if the platform supports
it. With optimization enabled, I doubt it will happen, but we should
check it.

http://codereview.chromium.org/57052

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to