X64: Reenabled RSet.

X64: Reenabled RSet.

[Lasse Reichstein, 2009-07-31 13:08:43]

Complex review.

[William Hesse, 2009-08-03 09:03:28]

LGTM with comments.

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/7
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/7#newcode56
Line 56: static inline bool is_int32(uint64_t x) {
I can forsee a bug happening because of this function.  I think we sometimes use
a uint64_t for data that really includes negative values.  The proper function
for a person to use in that case is is_int32(int64_t x), but they would need a
cast to use it.  Could this be called uint_is_int32 to make it clear to the user
that it should be used carefully?

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/9
File src/x64/macro-assembler-x64.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/9#newcode161
Line 161: j(zero, &done);
Remove this smi test - we think it isn't worth it.

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/9#newcode170
Line 170: } else {
This optimization is unsafe if object can be in the upper half of the address
space.  Remove it.

[Lasse Reichstein, 2009-08-03 10:45:45]

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/7
File src/x64/assembler-x64.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/7#newcode56
Line 56: static inline bool is_int32(uint64_t x) {
I'm not sure we shouldn't find a better way to bite someone in the behind for
holding signed data in unsigned variables, and using them without casting.
But let's rename for now. The function isn't used yet, it was just added for
symmetry.

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/9
File src/x64/macro-assembler-x64.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/9#newcode161
Line 161: j(zero, &done);
Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/160453/diff/1/9#newcode170
Line 170: } else {
Done.