Remove special-casing of EAGER and SOFT deoptimization calling conventions, allowing calling addres…

Remove special-casing of EAGER and SOFT deoptimization calling conventions, allowing calling address to always be available to deoptimization entries.
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=15640

[titzer, 2013-07-09 15:00:32]

As discussed in person, this CL makes the code generated in the deoptimization
jump table always pass the return PC (either using a CALL or a jump-and-link) so
that the calling convention into the deoptimization entries is more uniform.

[danno, 2013-07-10 10:04:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc
File src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc#ne...
src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc:478: __ add(r4, sp, Operand(kSavedRegistersAreaSize +
(2 * kPointerSize)));
Why is LAZY handled differently? Shouldn't all four cases be uniform now?

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc
File src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.c...
src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc:360: __ b(&needs_frame_is_call);
Here and else where, remove is_call from variable names, it's no longer needed
for disambiguation.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc
File src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc#...
src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc:463: if (type() == EAGER || type() == SOFT ||
type() == OSR) {
As with ARM, why the special handling of LAZY?

[titzer, 2013-07-11 09:43:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc
File src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc#ne...
src/arm/deoptimizer-arm.cc:478: __ add(r4, sp, Operand(kSavedRegistersAreaSize +
(2 * kPointerSize)));
On 2013/07/10 10:04:30, danno wrote:
> Why is LAZY handled differently? Shouldn't all four cases be uniform now?

There was one remaining case, in the deoptimization entry itself. I've fixed
that one now too.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc
File src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.c...
src/arm/lithium-codegen-arm.cc:360: __ b(&needs_frame_is_call);
On 2013/07/10 10:04:30, danno wrote:
> Here and else where, remove is_call from variable names, it's no longer needed
> for disambiguation.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc
File src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/18356008/diff/1/src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc#...
src/mips/deoptimizer-mips.cc:463: if (type() == EAGER || type() == SOFT ||
type() == OSR) {
On 2013/07/10 10:04:30, danno wrote:
> As with ARM, why the special handling of LAZY?

Done.

[danno, 2013-07-11 14:47:48]

lgtm

[titzer, 2013-07-12 07:26:09]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r15640 (presubmit successful).