hi Eric, Could you pls comment on the simulator issue below? Thanks, Zaheer
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > And Zaheed, you didn't upload new version of the patch. > > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6170001/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc > File src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc (right): > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6170001/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc#newcode1414 > src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc:1414: mov(scratch, > Operand(unwind_space)); > Zaheer, > > I am not sure it's something which cannot be solved. > > I do agree with Sergey and think we should allocate v8::Arguments below > exit frame (exactly like we do for ia32)---one of the reasons I asked > you to refactor the code was to make these things immediately visible. > > We deal with alignment on x64 as well and it looks fine (in the worst > case you would need the same and_ trick, see PrepareCallCFunction). > > And so on. > > > On 2011/01/11 15:44:35, zaheer wrote: > >> On 2011/01/11 14:11:33, antonm wrote: >> > it looks like a lot of code below is shared with >> MacroAssembler::EnterExitFrame. >> > Is it possible to refactor the common code and make it more like >> > ia32 > >> > implementation (which just invokes EnterApiExitFrame + some magic >> > for some > >> > platforms? >> The behavior is different from EnterExitFrame >> - v8::arguments has to be allocated above exit frame to miss gc >> - The alignment has to happen after allocating space for the args and >> > it should > >> handle aligned/unaligned case based on arg_stack_space (unlike >> > EnterExitFrame > >> which knows the number of pushes - 5) >> - exit frame pc patching has to be handled >> - argv and builtin function is n/a in this case >> > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6170001/diff/1/src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc > File src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc (right): > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6170001/diff/1/src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc#newcode2319 > src/arm/stub-cache-arm.cc:2319: #ifdef USE_SIMULATOR > On 2011/01/11 15:44:35, zaheer wrote: > >> On 2011/01/11 14:11:33, antonm wrote: >> > do we need a special case for simulator? >> currently the simulator interface to the native api expects a argc, >> > argv and > >> direct call breaks that (it has a v8::Arguments&). I wasnt sure how to >> > fix this > >> in the simulator, but it would be great if we can do it. >> > > I see, let's ask Erik, maybe he can suggest something. I am concerned > with the testability of this change---I think most of the people use > simulator to run tests so we can miss errors. > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6170001/ > > -- > v8-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev > -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
