http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23001 File src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23001#newcode1671 src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc:1671: STATIC_ASSERT(kSmiTag == 0); BranchOnSmi(r1, miss)? http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23002 File src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23002#newcode1970 src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:1970: __ mov(edx, Operand(esp, 2 * kPointerSize)); should you load receiver into edx? Maybe check for its smi-ness with an operand? You apparently don't need receiver anymore. http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23002#newcode2010 src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc:2010: __ ret(2 * kPointerSize); Maybe unify this and ARM ret: in ARM code you use argc while here you doesn't. http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23004 File src/x64/stub-cache-x64.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23004#newcode1585 src/x64/stub-cache-x64.cc:1585: nit: maybe drop blank lines here, we imho don't add to readability http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/diff/22001/23004#newcode1603 src/x64/stub-cache-x64.cc:1603: __ SmiToInteger32(rax, rax); do we need this tagging/untagging? Looks like MSB of Smi still gives you the sign and you can proceed exactly like in ia32 case? (probably adding some asserts/extending number of tests). I won't be surprised if it'd be notably faster for fastest case. http://codereview.chromium.org/3446024/show -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
