Change of kNumRegisters to 12 is in next changelist. On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2 > File src/x64/register-allocator-x64-inl.h (right): > > http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2#newcode41 > Line 41: reg.is(kScratchRegister) || reg.is(r12); > On 2009/06/12 09:24:30, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > >> See below for r12. >> > > > Done. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2#newcode49 > Line 49: static int numbers[] = { > On 2009/06/12 09:24:30, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > >> Would it help compiler optimization to make this "const int"? >> > > > Done. > > http://codereview.chromium.org/126043/diff/1/2#newcode62 > Line 62: -1, // r12 > On 2009/06/12 09:24:30, Lasse Reichstein wrote: > >> No need to exclude r12 (unless you reserve it for something yourself). >> We currently disallow r12 as index register, but we shouldn't - it >> > works fine. > >> I'll post a CL to remove the restriction. >> > > If anything, if we can make r12 and r13 low priority registers (last >> > in line to > >> get used), it might make code a little smaller, since opcodes using >> > r13 (with no > >> displacement) or r12 (with no index) as base registers cost an extra >> > byte. > > Done. > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/126043 > -- William Hesse Software Engineer [email protected] Google Denmark ApS Frederiksborggade 20B, 1 sal 1360 København K Denmark CVR nr. 28 86 69 84 If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else (it may contain confidential or privileged information), please erase all copies of it, including all attachments, and please let the sender know it went to the wrong person. Thanks. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
