Implement quadword MOV on x64 assembler, emitting REX prefix.

Implement quadword MOV on x64 assembler, emitting REX prefix.

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2030

[iposva, 2009-05-20 17:08:51]

Please move the two implementations into the -inl.h.

-Ivan

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1003/7
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1003/7#newcode833
Line 833: #undef EMIT
Why are these two functions so exceptional that they have to be defined in the
.h file instead of being part of the -inl.h like all the other inline functions?

That would also remove to expose the EMIT macro in the header file.

[Kevin Millikin (Chromium), 2009-05-22 07:20:27]

It looks OK after moving the inlined functions as Ivan suggests.

I presume we're just not far enough along to have x64 assembler tests yet?  If
not, it would be a good goal to get there soon.

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1003/7
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1003/7#newcode833
Line 833: #undef EMIT
It's also weird that they don't match the naming scheme used in the rest of the
assembler.

You should be consistent (match the ia32 naming scheme everwhere, or switch to
the CamelCase naming scheme everwhere).

[William Hesse, 2009-05-22 07:44:56]

Comments addressed, functions renamed and moved.

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1003/7
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1003/7#newcode833
Line 833: #undef EMIT
On 2009/05/22 07:20:27, Kevin Millikin wrote:
> It's also weird that they don't match the naming scheme used in the rest of
the
> assembler.
> 
> You should be consistent (match the ia32 naming scheme everwhere, or switch to
> the CamelCase naming scheme everwhere).

Functions moved to -inl.h file, renamed to emit_rex_64.

[iposva, 2009-05-22 07:56:38]

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1005/14
File src/x64/assembler-x64.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1005/14#newcode279
Line 279: emit_rex_64(dst, src);
Will all mov instructions need the emit_rex_64 prefix? How are you going to
distinguish movl and movq instructions?

Can you also please upload the -inl.h files?

[William Hesse, 2009-05-22 11:35:13]

-inl.h file uploaded in change http://codereview.chromium.org/113761

The movl instruction will use emit_rex_32, which
will emit a REX prefix without the REX.W bit set.
If none of the flags in the REX prefix is needed,
emit_rex_32 will not emit a prefix.

The mov_w instruction (if it is ever needed) will need
to use both the size override prefix and possibly a
REX without REX.W set.



On 2009/05/22 07:56:38, iposva wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1005/14
> File src/x64/assembler-x64.cc (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/115571/diff/1005/14#newcode279
> Line 279: emit_rex_64(dst, src);
> Will all mov instructions need the emit_rex_64 prefix? How are you going to
> distinguish movl and movq instructions?
> 
> Can you also please upload the -inl.h files?