Yes! More of this, please! :-)
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/diff/60001/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/diff/60001/src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc#newcode1421
src/ia32/full-codegen-ia32.cc:1421: // Use inline caching. Variable name
is passed in ecx and the global
nit: outdated comment. I think you can just delete it, it doesn't really
provide insight.
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc#newcode960
src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc:960: ASSERT(edx.is(ReceiverRegister()));
I'm not too happy with these ASSERTs, as opposed to using
ReceiverRegister() instead of raw "edx" below. But I concede that it's
hard to decide where to draw the line. I can live with the ASSERT, at
least for now.
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc#newcode983
src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc:983: static const Register LoadIC_TempRegister() {
return ebx; }
As discussed, I think medium-term we want to define this globally like
ReceiverRegister() and friends. But for now this is OK.
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/diff/60001/src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc#newcode988
src/ia32/ic-ia32.cc:988: // -- ReceiverRegister() : receiver
Arguably this entire comment block could now be reduced to:
// Return address is on the stack (esp[0]).
But I'm fine with keeping it.
https://codereview.chromium.org/356713003/
--
--
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.
