Add extra space to op_call and related opcodes
Created attachment 224908 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 224908 [details] Patch r=me
Comment on attachment 224908 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=224908&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:9 > + slot to the op_call instructions, and refactoring to make simlar Nit: simlar => similar
Comment on attachment 224908 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=224908&action=review > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:10 > + changes easier in future. Nit: "in future" => "in the future"
Committed r164503: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/164503>
Why? Did you test performance? Inlining is based on bytecode size, and you just made everything larger.
(In reply to comment #6) > Why? > > Did you test performance? Inlining is based on bytecode size, and you just made everything larger. Because call_var_args needs an extra argument, i didn't think about the performance impact because i forgot that inlining was based on # of operands rather than # of opcodes. I'll see if i can fix this, or alternatively just remove the requirement that call_var_args be the same size as all the other calls.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Why? > > > > Did you test performance? Inlining is based on bytecode size, and you just made everything larger. > > Because call_var_args needs an extra argument, i didn't think about the performance impact because i forgot that inlining was based on # of operands rather than # of opcodes. > > I'll see if i can fix this, or alternatively just remove the requirement that call_var_args be the same size as all the other calls. I think it's enough to just measure it and make sure that nothing broke
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Why? > > > > > > Did you test performance? Inlining is based on bytecode size, and you just made everything larger. > > > > Because call_var_args needs an extra argument, i didn't think about the performance impact because i forgot that inlining was based on # of operands rather than # of opcodes. > > > > I'll see if i can fix this, or alternatively just remove the requirement that call_var_args be the same size as all the other calls. > > I think it's enough to just measure it and make sure that nothing broke kk
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Why? > > > > > > Did you test performance? Inlining is based on bytecode size, and you just made everything larger. > > > > Because call_var_args needs an extra argument, i didn't think about the performance impact because i forgot that inlining was based on # of operands rather than # of opcodes. > > > > I'll see if i can fix this, or alternatively just remove the requirement that call_var_args be the same size as all the other calls. > > I think it's enough to just measure it and make sure that nothing broke I don't see a regression under jsc on my MBP. Just about to run the DRT hosted version.