[Interpreter] Templatize AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for bytecode creation.

[Interpreter] Templatize AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for bytecode creation.

Templatizes the AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for BytecodeNode creation and
BytecodeRegisterOptimizer::PrepareForBytecode. This allows the compiler to
statically know whether the bytecode being created accesses the accumulator
and what operand types need scaling, avoiding runtime checks in the code.

Also removes BytecodeNode::set_bytecode methods.

Committed: https://crrev.com/e27b348d1a3258adbbba257c92d6bf31c6c5bf55
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41706}

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-01 18:00:02]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-01 18:00:09]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-01 18:00:35]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-01 18:00:39]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-01 18:04:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-01 18:04:20]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel/bu...)

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-01 18:08:25]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-02 10:39:46]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:39:56]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:41:47]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:41:48]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel/bu...)
  v8_linux_nodcheck_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_nodcheck_rel_ng/bu...)
  v8_mac_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_mac_rel_ng/builds/13582)

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-02 10:46:06]

Patchset #3 (id:60001) has been deleted

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-02 10:46:54]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:47:02]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-02 10:47:48]

rmcilroy@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ leszeks@google.com, mythria@chromium.org

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-02 10:47:49]

Mythri / Leszek, PTAL thanks.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:48:46]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:48:47]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_gcc_compile_rel/bu...)
  v8_linux_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_rel_ng/builds/17189)
  v8_mac_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_mac_rel_ng/builds/13584)

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-02 10:55:23]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 10:55:31]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 11:21:32]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-02 11:21:33]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[mythria, 2016-12-02 16:59:49]

lgtm.

[Leszek Swirski, 2016-12-05 10:57:41]

leszeks@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ leszeks@chromium.org

[Leszek Swirski, 2016-12-05 10:57:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h:342: UpdateScaleForOperand(operand_index,
operand);
Should we now no longer do this, but instead DCHECK that the current scale is
sufficient for the operand?

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-register-optimizer.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-register-optimizer.cc:269:
BytecodeNode::Create<Bytecode::kStar, OperandType::kRegOut>(
This seems error prone -- would it be worth having bytecode-templated create
functions with no other template parameters, that then are specialized (with the
help of BYTECODE_LIST) to have the correct operands?

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-08 23:21:48]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 23:21:50]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 23:25:40]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-08 23:25:41]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  v8_linux64_gyp_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux64_gyp_rel_ng/build...)
  v8_linux_mipsel_compile_rel on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_linux_mipsel_compile_rel...)
  v8_mac_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_mac_rel_ng/builds/13938)
  v8_win_nosnap_shared_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win_nosnap_shared_rel_ng...)
  v8_win_rel_ng on master.tryserver.v8 (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.v8/builders/v8_win_rel_ng/builds/19262)

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-09 09:19:31]

Patchset #5 (id:120001) has been deleted

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-09 09:19:36]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 09:19:47]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-09 09:21:05]

Thanks for the comments, PTAL.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h:342: UpdateScaleForOperand(operand_index,
operand);
On 2016/12/05 10:57:42, Leszek Swirski wrote:
> Should we now no longer do this, but instead DCHECK that the current scale is
> sufficient for the operand?

We still need this for the non-templated constructors. Since we are constructing
the bytecode we don't know the scale yet, and so SetOperand needs to update it
as needed during construction.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-register-optimizer.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-register-optimizer.cc:269:
BytecodeNode::Create<Bytecode::kStar, OperandType::kRegOut>(
On 2016/12/05 10:57:42, Leszek Swirski wrote:
> This seems error prone -- would it be worth having bytecode-templated create
> functions with no other template parameters, that then are specialized (with
the
> help of BYTECODE_LIST) to have the correct operands?

Good idea, done (as differently named functions rather than bytecode-templated
specialized functions) .  I've also added DCHECKS in the Create functions to
make sure the bytecode operand types match the template.

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-09 09:31:59]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 09:32:05]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 09:56:56]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-09 09:56:57]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Leszek Swirski, 2016-12-12 14:55:41]

lgtm, with one nit

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h:342: UpdateScaleForOperand(operand_index,
operand);
On 2016/12/09 09:21:05, rmcilroy wrote:
> On 2016/12/05 10:57:42, Leszek Swirski wrote:
> > Should we now no longer do this, but instead DCHECK that the current scale
is
> > sufficient for the operand?
> 
> We still need this for the non-templated constructors. Since we are
constructing
> the bytecode we don't know the scale yet, and so SetOperand needs to update it
> as needed during construction.

Ah, ok, I thought you were getting rid of the non-templated constructors. Sounds
good.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/160001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/160001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h:201: // }
remove?

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-14 22:50:50]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-14 22:50:53]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-14 23:35:20]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-14 23:35:21]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-15 07:52:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/100001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h:342: UpdateScaleForOperand(operand_index,
operand);
On 2016/12/12 14:55:41, Leszek Swirski wrote:
> On 2016/12/09 09:21:05, rmcilroy wrote:
> > On 2016/12/05 10:57:42, Leszek Swirski wrote:
> > > Should we now no longer do this, but instead DCHECK that the current scale
> is
> > > sufficient for the operand?
> > 
> > We still need this for the non-templated constructors. Since we are
> constructing
> > the bytecode we don't know the scale yet, and so SetOperand needs to update
it
> > as needed during construction.
> 
> Ah, ok, I thought you were getting rid of the non-templated constructors.
Sounds
> good.

Yeah I am hoping to eventually get rid of them, but we still need them for the
peephole optimizer for now.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/160001/src/interpreter/byteco...
File src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/diff/160001/src/interpreter/byteco...
src/interpreter/bytecode-pipeline.h:201: // }
On 2016/12/12 14:55:41, Leszek Swirski wrote:
> remove?

Opps good catch - thanks! Done.

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-15 07:53:05]

The CQ bit was checked by rmcilroy@chromium.org

[rmcilroy, 2016-12-15 07:53:05]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
mythria@chromium.org, leszeks@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003/#ps180001
(title: "Remove commented code and rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 07:53:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 07:55:11]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 180001, "attempt_start_ts": 1481788385115170,
"parent_rev": "ec44a77e36f75c0185ded3ff138aea8c75a1e521", "commit_rev":
"fe9daa950aa48742caf2c8c292c3e7fa16d1ac11"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 07:55:15]

Description was changed from

==========
[Interpreter] Templatize AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for bytecode creation.

Templatizes the AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for BytecodeNode creation and
BytecodeRegisterOptimizer::PrepareForBytecode. This allows the compiler to
statically know whether the bytecode being created accesses the accumulator
and what operand types need scaling, avoiding runtime checks in the code.

Also removes BytecodeNode::set_bytecode methods.
==========

to

==========
[Interpreter] Templatize AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for bytecode creation.

Templatizes the AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for BytecodeNode creation and
BytecodeRegisterOptimizer::PrepareForBytecode. This allows the compiler to
statically know whether the bytecode being created accesses the accumulator
and what operand types need scaling, avoiding runtime checks in the code.

Also removes BytecodeNode::set_bytecode methods.

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 07:55:16]

Committed patchset #7 (id:180001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 07:56:31]

Description was changed from

==========
[Interpreter] Templatize AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for bytecode creation.

Templatizes the AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for BytecodeNode creation and
BytecodeRegisterOptimizer::PrepareForBytecode. This allows the compiler to
statically know whether the bytecode being created accesses the accumulator
and what operand types need scaling, avoiding runtime checks in the code.

Also removes BytecodeNode::set_bytecode methods.

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2542903003
==========

to

==========
[Interpreter] Templatize AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for bytecode creation.

Templatizes the AccumulatorUsage and OperandType for BytecodeNode creation and
BytecodeRegisterOptimizer::PrepareForBytecode. This allows the compiler to
statically know whether the bytecode being created accesses the accumulator
and what operand types need scaling, avoiding runtime checks in the code.

Also removes BytecodeNode::set_bytecode methods.

Committed: https://crrev.com/e27b348d1a3258adbbba257c92d6bf31c6c5bf55
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41706}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 07:56:32]

Patchset 7 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/e27b348d1a3258adbbba257c92d6bf31c6c5bf55
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41706}