On 2012/09/17 03:10:48, xqian wrote:
Hi， Yang
Thanks for your review. I refined the code according to your comments.
Please
check the patch set 3.
Thanks,
-Xi
On 2012/09/14 15:38:16, Yang wrote:
> Thanks for this patch! I'll land this patch once the following two
comments
are
> addressed.
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/10916311/diff/3001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc
> File src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/10916311/diff/3001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc#newcode3224
> src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc:3224: __ j(above, &while_true,
Label::kNear);
> Please add a comment here that the above flag is set if the bit shifted
out
was
> not set. This would make understanding this easier.
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/10916311/diff/3001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc#newcode3225
> src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc:3225: __ mulsd(double_result,
double_scratch);
> Since double_result is 1 here, wouldn't movq(double_result,
double_scratch)
do
> the same? That would actually be more readable imo. Maybe also faster?
LGTM. Landing.
Does it make sense to port this to x64?
https://codereview.chromium.org/10916311/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
