LGTM with minor comments, below.
Does this change ensure that the code in objects.cc (string copy I think)
also
takes advantage of unaligned accesses?
http://codereview.chromium.org/1731013/diff/24001/25004
File src/arm/simulator-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/1731013/diff/24001/25004#newcode880
src/arm/simulator-arm.cc:880: // Linux and modern OS on ARMv7 enable
unaligned accesses,
This 3 line comment, repeated many times, doesn't really explain the
situation right. I suggest this comment be removed (the #if speaks for
itself) and instead the comment above be edited to reflect the current
situation on ARM (all ARMv7 chips allow unaligned accesses, but not all
operating systems allow it).
http://codereview.chromium.org/1731013/diff/24001/25001
File src/globals.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/1731013/diff/24001/25001#newcode51
src/globals.h:51: // So it is safe to use unaligned access for ARMv7
backend in v8
I suggest instead of this text:
"Some CPU-OS combinations allow unaligned access on ARM. We
assume that unaligned accesses are not allowed unless the
build system defines the CAN_USE_UNALIGNED_ACCESSES macro to
be non-zero."
http://codereview.chromium.org/1731013/diff/24001/25001#newcode84
src/globals.h:84: // So it is safe to use unaligned access for ARMv7
backend in v8
And here.
http://codereview.chromium.org/1731013/show
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
