On 2015/07/30 15:50:39, rossberg wrote:
On 2015/07/30 15:34:58, adamk wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1250733005/diff/230001/src/macros.py
> File src/macros.py (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1250733005/diff/230001/src/macros.py#newcode101
> src/macros.py:101: macro IS_SIMD_VALUE(arg) =
(%_IsSimdValue(arg));
> On 2015/07/30 15:12:24, rossberg wrote:
> > I'm surprised this actually works! See above, you should have written
> > %IsSimdValue here.
>
> Drive-by explanation of why this works: since a recent refactor (by
Sven I
think
> it was), the "%_" form works for all runtime calls, and the backends
fall
back
> to the runtime if they don't have an implementation of a given
intrinsic.
Hm, was there a particular motivation for that change? Seems to make
intent
less
clear and accidents go unnoticed.
We already were in a weird place since we started adding intrinsics that
were
only implemented in Crankshaft (and runtime). With the introduction of
TurboFan-backed intrinsics, this got even weirder. I think the motivation
makes
sense, though I agree it's annoying that you can't tell just by looking at a
callsite whether it'll be inlined.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1250733005/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
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 v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
