On 2012/09/17 07:40:14, Yang wrote:
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?
The x64 follows the same algorithm for integer exponential. It should be
worth
to try. I'll verify the performance.
-Xi
https://codereview.chromium.org/10916311/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
