Hi Toon,
Thanks for the review. My origin intent is to introduce MoveDouble,
MoveDouble
and MoveInteger64 (they all need 64-bit move instruction, an alternative is
to
use MoveQuadWord, see https://codereview.chromium.org/26216008/), after
that,
introduce a new Move macro instruction for all the other movq usage. For
x64,
this new Move is implemented by movq and for X32, it is implemented by movl.
I am not sure movp is a right abstraction for all the other movq usages.
For the
difference between x64 and x32:
1) Nearly all the movq in the x64 port needs to be replaced with movl
by the
script.
2) 64-bit movq needs to be kept, they are doubles, integer64 and return
address. I have used __k annotation in the X64 code so the script does not
translate them into movl.
Thanks
-Haitao
On 2013/11/25 12:17:13, Toon Verwaest wrote:
Would it be possible to use movp rather than MoveReturnAddress, and keep
movq
rather than introducing MoveInteger64? Movp would just mov a
platform-specific
pointer-sized value, while movq and movl would do what the name indicates.
If there's no other reason you introduced those specific Move* functions,
I'd
prefer to not overspecify the intent. Otherwise we end up with lots of
specific
macro instructions that add more noise than value.
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.
