DBC: Eager deoptimization and CheckSmi instruction.

runtime/vm/flow_graph_compiler.cc

Index: runtime/vm/flow_graph_compiler.cc
diff --git a/runtime/vm/flow_graph_compiler.cc b/runtime/vm/flow_graph_compiler.cc
index b403bbf7fa677161f9c64a0e3a899e302e8dd51e..e7f76a0bfa6acc734821221b948fb0dbea72c400 100644
--- a/runtime/vm/flow_graph_compiler.cc
+++ b/runtime/vm/flow_graph_compiler.cc
@@ -987,6 +987,24 @@ Label* FlowGraphCompiler::AddDeoptStub(intptr_t deopt_id,
 }
 
 
+#if defined(TARGET_ARCH_DBC)
+void FlowGraphCompiler::AddDeoptWithoutStub(intptr_t deopt_id,
+                                            ICData::DeoptReasonId reason,
+                                            uint32_t flags) {
+  ASSERT(is_optimizing());
+  ASSERT(!intrinsic_mode());
+  CompilerDeoptInfo* info =
+      new(zone()) CompilerDeoptInfo(deopt_id,
+                                    reason,
+                                    flags,
+                                    pending_deoptimization_env_);
+
+  deopt_infos_.Add(info);
+  info->set_pc_offset(assembler()->CodeSize());

[Vyacheslav Egorov (Google), 2016/06/09 15:09:06]

After looking through deoptimization code I realized where the
set_pc_offset(...) discrepancy between DBC and other architectures was coming
from. See comments in the simulator code.

If you resolve them then you should be able to write

__ Deopt(0, /*is_eager=*/1)
info->set_pc_offset(...);

which matches other architectures.

[zra, 2016/06/09 16:42:23]

Done.

+}
+#endif  // defined(TARGET_ARCH_DBC)
+
+
 void FlowGraphCompiler::FinalizeExceptionHandlers(const Code& code) {
   ASSERT(exception_handlers_list_ != NULL);
   const ExceptionHandlers& handlers = ExceptionHandlers::Handle(