Your comments addressed, some additional changes made. Please check again.
http://codereview.chromium.org/113997/diff/1012/9 File src/x64/assembler-x64.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/113997/diff/1012/9#newcode126 Line 126: __ movq(rdx, rcx); On 2009/06/02 08:57:20, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > Here you should combine ecx and edx into eax to return it as a 64-bit value. The > F0-function typedef returns a 64-bit value in rax, not in edx:eax as in 32-bit > mode. > I.e., > __ movl(rax, rdx); // i.e., 32-bit zero-extending move > __ or_(rax, 1 << CPUID); > __ shl(ecx, 32); > __ or_(rax, ecx); Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/113997/diff/1012/9#newcode476 Line 476: emit_rex_64(rax); On 2009/06/02 08:57:20, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > Just emit 0x40, or make a plain emit_rex_64(). The rax register use is > confusing. Done, emit_rex_64(). This is 0x48, not 0x40. The W bit is set. http://codereview.chromium.org/113997/diff/1012/10 File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/113997/diff/1012/10#newcode403 Line 403: // TODO(): Move to macro assembler. On 2009/06/02 08:57:20, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > Labels are part of the assembler proper. No need to move it to the > macro-assembler. Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/113997 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
