Sorry, didn't immediate realize the review tool is not updated from email;
will
stick to the tool now.
On 2010/03/02 14:15:38, Erik Corry wrote:
The stuff from the new .h file can be moved into constants-arm.h. The
stuff
from the new .cc file can go either in the simulator or disassembler .cc
file.
Done.
Also removed the bxxxx constants; replaced them with hex/Bxx for now:
consolidation of constants.arm.h, assembler-arm.h and assembler-thumb2.h
should
probably be a separate CL.
http://codereview.chromium.org/651029/diff/3020/4057
File src/arm/instr-thumb2.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/651029/diff/3020/4057#newcode229
src/arm/instr-thumb2.h:229: int imm_;
On 2010/02/26 13:07:23, Erik Corry wrote:
> The instruction needs to be a very lightweight object. This thing has
15
> fields, most of which will be unused in most instructions. Just
initializing
> this object is likely to cost you.
>
> I suggest that you leave instr0_ and instr1_ and make all the rest
inlined
> accessor functions.
Having thought about this a bit more I can see that the irregularity of
the T2
instruction set makes this a reasonable option.
In the slightly longer run we would like to see the T2 and ARM simulators
use
the same overall structure. The easiest way to achieve this would be to
move
the ARM instruction decoder to use the same infrastructure. I don't feel
that
has to be a part of this first change list though.
http://codereview.chromium.org/651029
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
