On 2012/07/25 07:49:06, Sven Panne wrote:
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.
I addressed Sven's comments. Following Rodolph's comments (crankshaft has
been
consciously ruled out for processors without VFP3), I decided to scale back
this
CL to only lower the requirements to VFP2 where possible.
http://codereview.chromium.org/10818026/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
