Who could possibly object to nit-picking?!? LGTM.
http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/diff/1/5 File src/x64/full-codegen-x64.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/diff/1/5#newcode1968 src/x64/full-codegen-x64.cc:1968: Condition non_negative_smi = __ CheckNonNegativeSmi(rax); Should be masm()-> (or however the macroassembler is accessed here). The __ macro should not be used for calls that return values. http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/diff/1/8 File src/x64/macro-assembler-x64.h (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/diff/1/8#newcode316 src/x64/macro-assembler-x64.h:316: void JumpIfNotSmiOrNegative(Register src, LabelType* on_not_smi); or negative what? Is it the double (triple?) negation that made you not call it JumpIfNotNonNegativeSmi ? That would be more consistent, but admittedly a bit awkward. http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/diff/1/8#newcode333 src/x64/macro-assembler-x64.h:333: void JumpIfAnyNotSmiOrNegative(Register src1, Register src2, JumpIfNotBothNonNegativeSmi http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/diff/1/8#newcode1508 src/x64/macro-assembler-x64.h:1508: void MacroAssembler::JumpIfAnyNotSmiOrNegative(Register src1, JumpIfBothNonNegativeSmi would be more direct. http://codereview.chromium.org/3574002/show -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
