http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2 File src/x64/register-allocator-x64-inl.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2#newcode41 Line 41: reg.is(kScratchRegister) || reg.is(r12); On 2009/06/12 09:24:30, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > See below for r12. Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2#newcode49 Line 49: static int numbers[] = { On 2009/06/12 09:24:30, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > Would it help compiler optimization to make this "const int"? Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2#newcode62 Line 62: -1, // r12 On 2009/06/12 09:24:30, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > No need to exclude r12 (unless you reserve it for something yourself). > We currently disallow r12 as index register, but we shouldn't - it works fine. > I'll post a CL to remove the restriction. > If anything, if we can make r12 and r13 low priority registers (last in line to > get used), it might make code a little smaller, since opcodes using r13 (with no > displacement) or r12 (with no index) as base registers cost an extra byte. Done. http://codereview.chromium.org/126043 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
