LGTM.
I less than three this!
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc#newcode970
src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc:970: static void LoadIC_PushArgs(MacroAssembler*
masm) {
Nice idea!
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc#newcode1022
src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc:1022: const Register StoreIC::ReceiverRegister() {
return edx; }
I guess the next CL will s/edx/LoadIC::ReceiverRegister()/ here?
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/ia32/lithium-codegen-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/lithium-codegen-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/ia32/lithium-codegen-ia32.cc#newcode4061
src/ia32/lithium-codegen-ia32.cc:4061: // Is this a problem?
Nope. We're calling out, so the entire instruction is (hopefully!)
marked as a call, so the register allocator considers all registers
trashed anyway. Having it put receiver and value in the registers that
the stub expects is just an optimization. The name however is a
constant, so we can just put it in manually.
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/x64/ic-x64.cc
File src/x64/ic-x64.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/diff/60001/src/x64/ic-x64.cc#newcode903
src/x64/ic-x64.cc:903: // ----------- S t a t e -------------
just "// The return address is on the stack."
https://codereview.chromium.org/381633002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
