* Add missing imul instruction on Intel....

* Add missing imul instruction on Intel.
* Fix incorrect signedness in disassembly of umull/mull on ARM.
* Fix incorrect register order in disassembly of umull/mull.
* Fix incorrect assembly of umull on ARM.
* Remove retroactively obsoleted restriction on choice of
  registers in mul instructions on ARM.

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2292

[William Hesse, 2009-06-27 17:01:13]

Could you also add this to the X64 platform.  It would be based on mul, in the
same way.  The comments could also be better on X64 - I should know, I wrote
them.

http://codereview.chromium.org/150002/diff/1/3
File src/ia32/assembler-ia32.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/150002/diff/1/3#newcode547
Line 547: void imul(Register reg);                               // edx:eax =
eax * reg.
Could you say that edx:eax = signed(eax) * signed(reg),
and unsigned for the mul case?  That is the point.

http://codereview.chromium.org/150002/diff/1/3#newcode548
Line 548: void imul(Register dst, const Operand& src);           // dst = dst *
src;
Why a semicolon?

http://codereview.chromium.org/150002/diff/1/3#newcode556
Line 556: void mul(Register src);                                // edx:eax =
eax * reg-
What is the - sign at the end for?

[Erik Corry, 2009-06-27 21:21:47]

Comments updated, x64 added.

[Kasper Lund, 2009-06-29 05:58:24]

LGTM. I looked briefly at the ARM simulator and it appears to do the right thing
with regards to signed/unsigned multiplication. Maybe you could double check
that?