NEW 102195
Some <foo>p -> <foo>q fixes in LLInt64 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102195
Summary Some <foo>p -> <foo>q fixes in LLInt64
Yuqiang Xian
Reported 2012-11-14 01:21:04 PST
Based on bug #100321, operations on 64-bit JSValues can use the <foo>q instructions.
Attachments
patch (2.88 KB, patch)
2012-11-14 01:29 PST, Yuqiang Xian 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Rebased patch (2.90 KB, patch)
2013-01-03 19:41 PST, Yuqiang Xian 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Rebased again (4.65 KB, patch)
2013-03-25 18:53 PDT, Yuqiang Xian 		mark.lam: review+
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Show Obsolete (2) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Yuqiang Xian
Comment 1 2012-11-14 01:29:19 PST
Created attachment 174104 [details] patch
Yuqiang Xian
Comment 2 2013-01-03 19:41:15 PST
Created attachment 181265 [details] Rebased patch
Yuqiang Xian
Comment 3 2013-03-25 18:53:06 PDT
Created attachment 194973 [details] Rebased again
Mark Hahnenberg
Comment 4 2013-11-04 10:36:11 PST
Comment on attachment 194973 [details] Rebased again Is there a reason for these changes? I like changing the raw loads to using load*FromInstruction, but I'm not clear on the seemingly random changes from *p to *q.
Yuqiang Xian
Comment 5 2013-11-04 17:18:36 PST
(In reply to comment #4) > (From update of attachment 194973 [details]) > Is there a reason for these changes? I like changing the raw loads to using load*FromInstruction, but I'm not clear on the seemingly random changes from *p to *q. The motivation is explained in bug #100321. We want to distinguish the "pointer" operations from the "64-bit value" operations. This patch just wants to make sure we consistently obey the rule of using *p for pointers and *q for 64-bit values. If you think this is reasonable, I can make the patch updated with latest code. Thanks.
Darin Adler
Comment 6 2014-07-12 17:22:32 PDT
I think that Filip or someone else who knows the assembly issues should review+/cq+ this patch. I’d love to do it but I’m not 100% sure.
Darin Adler
Comment 7 2016-03-09 09:26:43 PST
Could someon review- or review+ this patch?
Mark Lam
Comment 8 2016-03-09 09:34:39 PST
Comment on attachment 194973 [details] Rebased again r=me
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.