Issue 11276: Minor cleanup code in GenerateStoreField.

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Issue 11276: Minor cleanup code in GenerateStoreField. (Closed)

Created:
12 years, 1 month ago by Feng Qian

Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago

Reviewers:
iposva

CC:
v8-dev

Base URL:
http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/

Visibility:
Public.

Description

Minor cleanup code in GenerateStoreField. Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=806

Patch Set 1 #

Created: 12 years, 1 month ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+7 lines, -10 lines)			Patch
	M	src/stub-cache-ia32.cc	View		3 chunks	+7 lines, -10 lines	2 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

iposva

LGTM, but please submit as an individual change to be able to isolate in benchmark ...

12 years, 1 month ago (2008-11-20 01:10:57 UTC) #2

Feng Qian

12 years, 1 month ago (2008-11-20 16:30:47 UTC) #3

http://codereview.chromium.org/11276/diff/1/2
File src/stub-cache-ia32.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/11276/diff/1/2#newcode429
Line 429: __ mov(scratch, FieldOperand(receiver_reg,
JSObject::kPropertiesOffset));
Running V8 bench suite (Richards, DeltaBlue, Crypto, Raytrace, and EarleyBoyer),
the differences are tiny on Windows:

3166 vs 3168 (after change).

On 2008/11/20 01:10:57, iposva wrote:
> Moving the load of the properties pointer down here only has a potential
> performance impact when this store also happens to have a transition. This
> should be negligible, but we should verify this with a benchmark run.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages