This is done as part of DoInteger32ToDouble stub, issue 6257003. Rodolph
2011/1/13 Søren Gjesse <[email protected]> > 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
