Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(540)

Unified Diff: src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc

Issue 4695003: Removing redundant stubs for API functions. (Closed) Base URL: http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/
Patch Set: '' Created 10 years, 1 month ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
Index: src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc
===================================================================
--- src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc (revision 5791)
+++ src/ia32/stub-cache-ia32.cc (working copy)
@@ -495,22 +495,35 @@
Address api_function_address = v8::ToCData<Address>(callback);
ApiFunction fun(api_function_address);
- ApiCallEntryStub stub(api_call_info_handle, &fun);
+ const int kApiArgc = 1; // API function gets reference to the v8::Arguments.
- __ EnterInternalFrame();
+ // Allocate the v8::Arguments structure in the arguments' space since
+ // it's not controlled by GC.
+ const int kApiStackSpace = 4;
+ __ PrepareCallApiFunction(argc + kFastApiCallArguments + 1,
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 not sure if it's worth it, but maybe unify exit fr
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 Please, explain what do you mean by that?
antonm 2010/11/12 18:35:55 Sure and sorry for not making it clear. Take a lo
SeRya 2010/11/13 09:19:49 Apparently push is shorter than mov and may be it
+ kApiArgc + kApiStackSpace);
+
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(1), eax); // v8::Arguments::implicit_args_.
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(2), ebx); // v8::Arguments::values_.
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(3), edx); // v8::Arguments::length_.
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 cannot we fuse those moves and moves above (ln. 49
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 Sure. I just forgot to do it.
antonm 2010/11/12 18:35:55 Is it the only opportunity? For example we could
SeRya 2010/11/13 09:19:49 Done.
+ // v8::Arguments::is_construct_call_.
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(4), Immediate(0));
+
+ // v8::InvocationCallback's argument.
+ __ lea(eax, ApiParameterOperand(1));
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(0), eax);
+
// Emitting a stub call may try to allocate (if the code is not
// already generated). Do not allow the assembler to perform a
// garbage collection but instead return the allocation failure
// object.
- MaybeObject* result = masm->TryCallStub(&stub);
+ MaybeObject* result = masm->TryCallApiFunctionAndReturn(&fun, kApiArgc +
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 that might be just me, but I am slightly uneasy wi
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 Done.
+ kApiStackSpace);
if (result->IsFailure()) {
*failure = Failure::cast(result);
return false;
}
-
- __ LeaveInternalFrame();
- __ ret((argc + 4) * kPointerSize);
return true;
}
@@ -1063,44 +1076,55 @@
Handle<AccessorInfo> callback_handle(callback);
- __ EnterInternalFrame();
- // Push the stack address where the list of arguments ends.
- __ lea(scratch2, Operand(esp, -2 * kPointerSize));
- __ push(scratch2);
+ // Insert additional parameters into the stack frame above return address.
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 are we sure it is always safe to piggy back on out
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 Technically this is not outer frame, it's our own.
+ ASSERT(!scratch3.is(reg));
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 shouldn't you check as well that !scratch{2,3}.is(
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 Caller code must give 5 different registers. If th
antonm 2010/11/12 18:35:55 I personally find this check somewhat misleading.
SeRya 2010/11/13 09:19:49 This asserts what we are not trying to use a regis
+ __ pop(scratch3); // Get return address to place it below.
+
__ push(receiver); // receiver
+ __ mov(scratch2, Operand(esp));
+ ASSERT(!scratch2.is(reg));
__ push(reg); // holder
// Push data from AccessorInfo.
if (Heap::InNewSpace(callback_handle->data())) {
- __ mov(scratch2, Immediate(callback_handle));
- __ push(FieldOperand(scratch2, AccessorInfo::kDataOffset));
+ __ mov(scratch1, Immediate(callback_handle));
+ __ push(FieldOperand(scratch1, AccessorInfo::kDataOffset));
} else {
__ push(Immediate(Handle<Object>(callback_handle->data())));
}
+ // Push the stack address where the list of arguments ends.
+ __ push(scratch2);
+
__ push(name_reg); // name
// Save a pointer to where we pushed the arguments pointer.
// This will be passed as the const AccessorInfo& to the C++ callback.
- STATIC_ASSERT(ApiGetterEntryStub::kStackSpace == 5);
- __ lea(eax, Operand(esp, 4 * kPointerSize));
__ mov(ebx, esp);
+ __ push(scratch3); // Restore return addresss.
+
// Do call through the api.
Address getter_address = v8::ToCData<Address>(callback->getter());
ApiFunction fun(getter_address);
- ApiGetterEntryStub stub(callback_handle, &fun);
+
+ // 3 elements array for v8::Agruments::values_, handler for name and pointer
+ // to the values (it considered as smi in GC).
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 are you talking about ApiParameters below? if yes
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 stake space (the first parameter of PrepareCallApi
+ const int kStackSpace = 5;
+ const int kApiArgc = 2;
+
+ __ PrepareCallApiFunction(kStackSpace, kApiArgc);
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 again, couldn't we merge pushing and exit frame se
+ __ lea(eax, Operand(ebx, 1 * kPointerSize));
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(0), ebx); // name.
+ __ mov(ApiParameterOperand(1), eax); // arguments pointer.
antonm 2010/11/10 14:53:54 I won't be surprised if __mov(APO(0), ebx); __ add
SeRya 2010/11/11 15:50:39 Done.
+
// Emitting a stub call may try to allocate (if the code is not
// already generated). Do not allow the assembler to perform a
// garbage collection but instead return the allocation failure
// object.
- Object* result = NULL; // Initialization to please compiler.
- { MaybeObject* try_call_result = masm()->TryCallStub(&stub);
- if (!try_call_result->ToObject(&result)) {
- *failure = Failure::cast(try_call_result);
- return false;
- }
+ MaybeObject* result = masm()->TryCallApiFunctionAndReturn(&fun, kApiArgc);
+ if (result->IsFailure()) {
+ *failure = Failure::cast(result);
+ return false;
}
- __ LeaveInternalFrame();
- __ ret(0);
return true;
}

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698