On 2014/04/17 08:32:35, ulan wrote:
> It seems that rax and rbx are raw integers, instead of SMI.
I think rax is SMI, but you're right that we should use rbx (which is a
raw
int)
From CallDescriptors::InitializeForIsolate in the code-stub-x64.cc, the rax'
representation is Representation::Integer32().
here to be consistent with other architectures.
I will upload a CL with this change:
__ movp(rdx, rbx);
__ shlp(rdx, Immediate(kPointerSizeLog2));
> Another comment is that rbx might be -1
This should be fine since we do signed comparison of rcx and rdx.
There is a corner case when rbx is -1, rdx is -8, and rcx might be -1, -2,
-3,
-4, ...
https://codereview.chromium.org/236633006/
--
--
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/d/optout.
