http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1007 File src/x64/assembler-x64-inl.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1007#newcode27 Line 27: On 2009/05/06 10:10:38, Dean McNamee wrote: > we should have guards even on -inl.h files. Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1007#newcode36 Line 36: return 0; On 2009/05/06 10:10:38, Dean McNamee wrote: > return NULL Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1006 File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1006#newcode37 Line 37: #ifndef V8_ASSEMBLER_X64_H_ On 2009/05/06 10:10:38, Dean McNamee wrote: > this guard is wrong. Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1006#newcode76 Line 76: // return 1 << code_; I removed it anyway. On 2009/05/06 11:03:11, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > I disagree. > If code expected to be close to correct, but not 64-bit compatible yet, > commenting it out and adding UNIMPLEMENTED is a fine way to mark that. > It should only happen in the x64/ files, though. http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1006#newcode106 Line 106: bool is_valid() const { return 0 <= code_ && code_ < 2; } // currently On 2009/05/06 10:10:38, Dean McNamee wrote: > currently ? I didn't add this, I guess it means we currently only use the first two XMM registers. Removed. http://codereview.chromium.org/115021/diff/1005/1006#newcode928 Line 928: #endif // V8_ASSEMBLER_IA32_H_ On 2009/05/06 10:10:38, Dean McNamee wrote: > this is wrong Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/115021 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list v8-dev@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
