Danno, thanks for the review.
This change adds syntactic sugar as you mentioned in the email. In order to
translate x64 codes into x32 code, some movq should be changed to movl
(related
to pointers), others are left intact (double, integer64 and return address).
This CL and https://codereview.chromium.org/26216008/ and
https://codereview.chromium.org/65723003/ make the intent (what movq does)
clear.
After this change, all the other movq could be replaced by a Move macro
instruction where X64 uses movq and X32 uses movl. I have thought to use
Macro
instruction to write all the assembler codes, if you prefer movq assembler
instruction, we could use it uniformly. I could revert
https://codereview.chromium.org/26216008/ and only introduce the Move macro
instruction discussed above.
On 2013/11/13 13:00:39, danno wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but I wonder why this is necessary? Won't
MoveInteger64
also be movq on x32? If so, it seems like this change just adds syntactic
sugar.
If so, then I'd rather just leave the code like it is.
https://codereview.chromium.org/64313002/
--
--
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.
