https://codereview.chromium.org/22290005/diff/33001/src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/22290005/diff/33001/src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc#newcode279
src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc:279: void
MacroAssembler::TaggedToI(Register input_reg, Register result_reg,
Why not just pass is no_reg to temp (removing the Maybe<>) argument for
cases that don't have a pre-allocated temp? I think that makes the
interface much cleaner and that's what we do elsewhere.
https://codereview.chromium.org/22290005/diff/33001/src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc#newcode287
src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc:287: if
(CpuFeatures::IsSafeForSnapshot(SSE2) && temp.has_value) {
if temp == no_reg, then why not just just do:
temp = xmm1;
subi (esp, esp, Immediate(kDoubleSize));
movdbl(MemOperand(esp, 0), temp);
... existing code ...
addi (esp, esp, Immediate(kDoubleSize));
I think it probably will still be much faster than the x87 code.
https://codereview.chromium.org/22290005/diff/33001/src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc#newcode344
src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc:344: }
Why do you need an explicit done label? Falling through should be the
"done" continuation after the current instruction without an explicit
jump is cleaner, that's what seems natural for most cases above and I
think adding a jmp to pc+4 is pretty silly in those cases.
https://codereview.chromium.org/22290005/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
