Please undo the change to the way safepoint registers and doubles are
pushed on
the stack. That will break stack traversal at safepoints. The rest looks
good.
:)
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/diff/1/src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc
File src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/diff/1/src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc#newcode2536
src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc:2536: Register tmp1 = input.is(r0) ? r1 :
r0;
Kevin had a nicer suggestion for these. We intend to use r1,r2,r3,r4 for
tmp1,tmp2,tmp3,tmp4. Input can only be one of them and if it is we will
use r0 instead.
Register tmp1 = input.is(r1) ? r0 : r1;
Register tmp2 = input.is(r2) ? r0 : r2;
Register tmp3 = input.is(r3) ? r0 : r3;
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc
File src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc#newcode475
src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc:475: PushSafepointRegisters();
What is the motivation for changing this? Please undo this change. This
will break stack-traversal at safepoints because the traversal code
expects the registers that can contain pointers to be pushed first.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc#newcode480
src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc:480: PopSafepointRegisters();
Undo please. :)
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc#newcode518
src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc:518: return MemOperand(sp,
SafepointRegisterStackIndex(reg.code()) * kInstrSize);
kInstrSize -> kPointerSize. This is an index into the stack and not the
instruction stream. Also, please undo your changes to where the doubles
are pushed and take that into account here when computing the offset
instead.
http://codereview.chromium.org/6366016/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
