ptal
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,
On 2013/08/09 13:27:25, danno wrote:
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.
Done.
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) {
On 2013/08/09 13:27:25, danno wrote:
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.
not sure what you mean by existing code. but actually we currently
always have a temp, so lets just assert that.
https://codereview.chromium.org/22290005/diff/33001/src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc#newcode344
src/ia32/macro-assembler-ia32.cc:344: }
On 2013/08/09 13:27:25, danno wrote:
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.
Done.
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.
