Please do that. I think that if we only have double_scratchX(), and use .high() or .low() for single precision registers the overlapping will be quite explicit.
Regards, Søren On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 14:38, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2011/01/13 12:33:06, Søren Gjesse wrote: > >> On 2011/01/13 12:25:54, Mads Ager wrote: >> > http://codereview.chromium.org/6250002/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.h >> > File src/arm/assembler-arm.h (right): >> > >> > >> > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6250002/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.h#newcode171 > >> > src/arm/assembler-arm.h:171: // d1 has also been excluded from >> allocation to >> be >> > used as a scratch >> > I already landed this, but why is this in this patch? I don't see any >> use of >> > double_scratch()? >> > > There is no use of double_scratch(), I had submitted this code in a > previous > upload, and at the time it was suggested I should add double_scratch() at > the > same time as single_scratch(). > > > Adding to Mads comment how about only having scratch_double0() as d0 and >> then >> use scratch_double0().high() or scratch_double0().low() for single >> precision >> scratch registers? >> > > that's fine by me, the only reason I have two double registers for scratch > is if > one need a single and double scratch register which don't overlap. > > I am happy to upload a new change for it, just let me know. > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/6250002/ > -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
