http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.cc File src/arm/assembler-arm.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.cc#newcode50 src/arm/assembler-arm.cc:50: unsigned CpuFeatures::supported_ = 0; We should either use uint64_t here or use unsigned below (same for other uint64_t/unsigned mixing below). http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.h File src/arm/assembler-arm.h (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.h#newcode513 src/arm/assembler-arm.h:513: if (f == VFP2 && !FLAG_enable_vfp3) return false; This is confusing, I think we should add a new flag for VFP2 or rename the existing one. In any case our build bots have to be changed accordingly. http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/assembler-arm.h#newcode539 src/arm/assembler-arm.h:539: // VFP2 and ARMv2 are implied by VFP3. ARMv7? http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc File src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/diff/1/src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc#newcode790 src/arm/macro-assembler-arm.cc:790: } else if (false && CpuFeatures::IsSupported(VFP3)) { As discussed offline, this duplicates some fallback code in Assembler:vmov, so we should handle VFP2-only platforms there. http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/ -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
