Reviewers: Søren Gjesse,

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3080
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3080: const Register scratch1 = r10;
Yes, it is. Used different register.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3091
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3091: CpuFeatures::Scope scope(VFP3);
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
Duplicate CpuFeatures::Scope.

Done, removed.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3165
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3165: //__ stop("cache hit");
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
Debug code.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3170
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3170: } // if (CpuFeatures::IsSupported(VFP3))
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
Two spaces before //.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3172
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3172: __ bind(&runtime_call);
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
Maybe the name of this label should be "calculate", as it does no
necessarily
call runtime (normally C-runtime is not counted as runtime).

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3186
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3186: __ push(r0);
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
r0 -> cache_entry

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3187
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3187: __ push(lr);
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
The code for calling the C functions are repeated. Maybe refactor it
into
TranscendentalCacheStub::GenerateCallCFunction.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3246
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3246: __ mov(scratch0, Operand(Smi::FromInt(2
* kDoubleSize)));
On 2011/03/02 10:09:45, Søren Gjesse wrote:
Shouldn't HeapNumber::kSize be enough? Allocating a heap number has
already
failed.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/diff/1/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc#newcode3256
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:3256: __ AllocateHeapNumber(r6, scratch0,
scratch1, r5, &skip_cache);
There is no reason. I changed the order.

Description:
ARM: Implement untagged input for TranscendentalCacheStub.

Please review this at http://codereview.chromium.org/6591073/

SVN Base: https://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge

Affected files:
  M src/arm/code-stubs-arm.h
  M src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
  M src/arm/codegen-arm.cc
  M src/arm/full-codegen-arm.cc
  M src/arm/lithium-arm.cc
  M src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.h
  M src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc
  M src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc
  M src/assembler.h
  M src/assembler.cc
  M src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.h


--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev

Reply via email to