FAQ
Looks good except for the loops in gsubr.c.
I think they should stay D_AL because you do care about smaller
registers being allocated, don't you?
Also there are other loops in the file that begin at D_AL that are not
being changed here. I would have expected them to be consistent.



http://codereview.appspot.com/6494107/diff/10001/src/cmd/8g/gsubr.c
File src/cmd/8g/gsubr.c (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6494107/diff/10001/src/cmd/8g/gsubr.c#newcode785
src/cmd/8g/gsubr.c:785: for(i=D_AX; i<=D_DI; i++)
Why did this change?

http://codereview.appspot.com/6494107/diff/10001/src/cmd/8g/gsubr.c#newcode795
src/cmd/8g/gsubr.c:795: for(i=D_AX; i<=D_DI; i++) {
Why did this change?

http://codereview.appspot.com/6494107/

Search Discussions

  • Remyoudompheng at Sep 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    On 2012/09/17 21:10:24, rsc wrote:
    Looks good except for the loops in gsubr.c.
    I think they should stay D_AL because you do care about smaller
    registers being
    allocated, don't you?
    In my comment I explain it is an ugly workaround because function
    parameters, although they are on the stack, have reg = D_AL. Maybe the
    correct fix is to have them have D_SP instead?

    I don't see where AL/AH/BL/BH can be used in 8g. In 6g they are not.


    http://codereview.appspot.com/6494107/
  • Russ Cox at Sep 17, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    I think you are probably right that they cannot be used at all. In
    that case let's change all the loops to start at D_AX instead of just
    a few.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-dev @
categoriesgo
postedSep 17, '12 at 9:15p
activeSep 17, '12 at 9:54p
posts3
users2
websitegolang.org

2 users in discussion

Russ Cox: 2 posts Remyoudompheng: 1 post

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase