Add statistics operations and long calls and jumps to x64 macro assembler.

Add statistics operations and long calls and jumps to x64 macro assembler.
Remove unimplemented instructions from x64 assembler.  Add operand-size
suffixes to add, sub, inc, dec, and cmp.

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2139

[William Hesse, 2009-06-08 12:16:15]

Should we change all the add and sub operations to addq and subq because we
added one addl and subl operation?

[Lasse Reichstein, 2009-06-09 07:14:45]

If we have both addl and add, we should rename add to addq.
However, there is a difference between movl and addl: The former zero-extends
the value, the latter does not affect the 
high half of the 64-bit register at all. 
Perhaps we should change movl to movzxl.

LGTM.

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/3
File src/x64/assembler-x64.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/3#newcode882
Line 882: void Assembler::movq(Register dst, const ExternalReference& ref) {
Again, why the reference?

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/5
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/5#newcode445
Line 445: void movq(Register dst, const ExternalReference& ext);
Why pass a struct containing only a single constant 64-bit value as a reference?

[William Hesse, 2009-06-09 08:47:07]

I renamed the add, sub, inc, and dec operations, adding operand-size suffixes. 
I removed unused instructions from the x64 assembler.  I implemented a few
miscellaneous instructions.

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/3
File src/x64/assembler-x64.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/3#newcode882
Line 882: void Assembler::movq(Register dst, const ExternalReference& ref) {
On 2009/06/09 07:14:45, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> Again, why the reference?

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/5
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/118380/diff/1/5#newcode445
Line 445: void movq(Register dst, const ExternalReference& ext);
On 2009/06/09 07:14:45, Lasse Reichstein wrote:
> Why pass a struct containing only a single constant 64-bit value as a
reference?

Because I was confused, and thought it was a bigger struct.
Done.

[Lasse Reichstein, 2009-06-09 10:30:15]

Still LGTM.