All files except the two new x64 ones reviewed.  Will send their review
later.


http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1006
File src/jsregexp.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1006#newcode469
Line 469: // If result is RETRY, the string have changed representation,
and we
Grammar.  "string have"

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1014
File src/x64/assembler-x64.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1014#newcode449
Line 449: void Assembler::arithmetic_op_16(byte opcode, Register dst,
Register src) {
These, and the other ones, should be reg, rm_reg.

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1014#newcode814
Line 814: emit(0x3c);
Shouldn't imm8.value_ be emitted?

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1015
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1015#newcode288
Line 288: private:
This looks wrongly formatted.  Shouldn't the blank line come before
"private:"

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1015#newcode543
Line 543: arithmetic_op_32(0x02, src, dst);
I think you need 0x01 here, not 0x02.

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1015#newcode588
Line 588: arithmetic_op(0x38, dst, src);
I think this is backwards.  0x38 is cmp r/m, reg.
The second argument of arithmetic op is reg_rm, I think.

Should you change all reg, reg operations to avoid the SIB byte for
sp/r12, or was it just important for addl?

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1015#newcode600
Line 600: immediate_arithmetic_op_8(0x7, dst, src);
Should this test if dst is al, and call cmpb_al?
If so, why is cmpb_al publicly exposed?

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443/diff/42/1015#newcode1193
Line 1193: void arithmetic_op_32(byte opcode, Register dst, Register
src);
All of these should say reg, rm_reg, not dst, src, to agree with their
parameters in the .cc file.  The two 64-bit ones should be together.

http://codereview.chromium.org/165443

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

Reply via email to