Bug 124087 – Get rid of the bizarre Darwin/x86-only MacroAssembler::shouldBlindForSpecificArch(uintptr_t) overload

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: FIXED
• Component: JavaScriptCore

[Filip Pizlo]

Patch forthcoming.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 216464 [details]
the patch

[Filip Pizlo]

Landed in http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/158981

[Darin Adler]

Comment on attachment 216464 [details]
the patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=216464&action=review

> Source/JavaScriptCore/assembler/MacroAssembler.h:992
> +        if (sizeof(void*) == 4)
> +            return shouldBlindForSpecificArch(static_cast<uint32_t>(value));
> +        return shouldBlindForSpecificArch(static_cast<uint64_t>(value));

Why doesn’t this work?

    return shouldBlindForSpecificArch(value);

I’d expect that overloading would take care of the rest. No need for the if statement.

[Filip Pizlo]

Comment on attachment 216464 [details]
the patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=216464&action=review

>> Source/JavaScriptCore/assembler/MacroAssembler.h:992
>> +        return shouldBlindForSpecificArch(static_cast<uint64_t>(value));
> 
> Why doesn’t this work?
> 
>     return shouldBlindForSpecificArch(value);
> 
> I’d expect that overloading would take care of the rest. No need for the if statement.

On some compilers (including a version of clang in one of the toolchains that we build on), uint32_t, uint64_t and uintptr_t are different types.  Hence passing uintptr_t causes a compile error; the compiler claims that the call overload is ambiguous.

This patch fixes that compile error.

It also removes a Darwin-only, and x86-only hack to avoid this ambiguity.  See the code I remove in MacroAssemblerX86Common.