Factored out common Instruction code in the CFG builder that depends only...

Factored out common Instruction code in the CFG builder that depends only
on the number of operands.

Tinkered with instruction printing to align operands and not include
so many parentheses.


Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2657

[William Hesse, 2009-08-10 12:47:08]

LGTM.

http://codereview.chromium.org/165237/diff/1/3
File src/cfg.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/165237/diff/1/3#newcode714
Line 714: PrintF("BinaryOp[%s] ", Token::Name(op()));
If we print this on two lines, or don't print "BinaryOp", the instruction name
field can get much shorter.  I think that would be good.

http://codereview.chromium.org/165237/diff/1/3#newcode734
Line 734: PrintF("L%d:\n", number());
number is a pretty non-descriptive name for the node number.

[Kevin Millikin (Chromium), 2009-08-10 12:59:11]

http://codereview.chromium.org/165237/diff/1/3
File src/cfg.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/165237/diff/1/3#newcode714
Line 714: PrintF("BinaryOp[%s] ", Token::Name(op()));
On 2009/08/10 12:47:08, William Hesse wrote:
> If we print this on two lines, or don't print "BinaryOp", the instruction name
> field can get much shorter.  I think that would be good.

Printing on two lines seems annoying.  I'd much rather keep one instruction per
line.

I prefer painful explicitness (and accuracy) about the actual object structure
involved, since it's intended for debug printing.

http://codereview.chromium.org/165237/diff/1/3#newcode734
Line 734: PrintF("L%d:\n", number());
On 2009/08/10 12:47:08, William Hesse wrote:
> number is a pretty non-descriptive name for the node number.

CfgNode::number() doesn't seem non-descriptive for the node number.  I'd change
it to something else if there ever became a danger of confusion, but otherwise I
prefer the simplicity.