Move stack unwinding logic into the runtime.

Move stack unwinding logic into the runtime.

R=jarin@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/4acbc93dbfe338adb217f4971e914f77afe504d9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#26957}

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-02-26 15:51:21]

PTAL. I would like to get a first round of comments before doing the various
architecture ports. Thanks!

[Jarin, 2015-02-27 07:49:14]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/40001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc
File src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/40001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32...
src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc:1516: ThrowPendingException(masm);
Out of curiosity, how is the uncatchable exception handled in the new world?

[Jarin, 2015-02-27 07:57:22]

On 2015/02/27 07:49:14, jarin wrote:
> lgtm
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/40001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc
> File src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/40001/src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32...
> src/ia32/code-stubs-ia32.cc:1516: ThrowPendingException(masm);
> Out of curiosity, how is the uncatchable exception handled in the new world?

Oh, ignore that question, that was a note that I forgot to delete after finding
the answer.

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-02-27 18:14:30]

mstarzinger@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rmcilroy@chromium.org, rodolph.perfetta@arm.com

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-02-27 18:14:30]

PTAL. Ports are done. Ross or Rodolph, could either of you double-check the ARM
ports?

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 10:58:52]

mstarzinger@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ yangguo@chromium.org

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 10:58:52]

+Yang

[rmcilroy, 2015-03-02 13:08:27]

Arm code looks reasonable other than use of 'ip' register.

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/80001/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/80001/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.c...
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:964: __ mov(ip,
Operand(pending_handler_context_address));
I don't think you should use ip here - it could be used by the mov(..,
MemOperand(...)) macro instructions.

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 14:21:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/80001/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/80001/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.c...
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:964: __ mov(ip,
Operand(pending_handler_context_address));
On 2015/03/02 13:08:27, rmcilroy wrote:
> I don't think you should use ip here - it could be used by the mov(..,
> MemOperand(...)) macro instructions.

Done. Thanks, got it.

[Rodolph Perfetta, 2015-03-02 14:55:28]

rodolph.perfetta@gmail.com changed reviewers:
+ rodolph.perfetta@gmail.com

[Rodolph Perfetta, 2015-03-02 14:55:29]

Only minor comments. Looks good.

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm....
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:974: __ tst(cp, cp);
minor nit (and present in the original code): on ARM cmp(cp, Operand(0)); is
more efficient.

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
File src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc:1038: 
add DCHECK(csp.Is(StackPointer()));

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 15:08:49]

Thanks for the feedback. Now all I have to fix is Win64. :(

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm....
src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:974: __ tst(cp, cp);
On 2015/03/02 14:55:29, Rodolph Perfetta wrote:
> minor nit (and present in the original code): on ARM cmp(cp, Operand(0)); is
> more efficient.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
File src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc:1038: 
On 2015/03/02 14:55:29, Rodolph Perfetta wrote:
> add DCHECK(csp.Is(StackPointer()));

Done.

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 16:42:22]

The CQ bit was checked by mstarzinger@chromium.org

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 16:42:23]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from jarin@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/#ps170001
(title: "Fix Win64 (finally).")

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 16:42:23]

The CQ bit was unchecked by mstarzinger@chromium.org

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-02 16:42:30]

The CQ bit was unchecked by mstarzinger@chromium.org

[rmcilroy, 2015-03-03 10:23:54]

On 2015/03/02 15:08:49, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. Now all I have to fix is Win64. :(
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
> File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm....
> src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:974: __ tst(cp, cp);
> On 2015/03/02 14:55:29, Rodolph Perfetta wrote:
> > minor nit (and present in the original code): on ARM cmp(cp, Operand(0)); is
> > more efficient.
> 
> Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
> File src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
> src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc:1038: 
> On 2015/03/02 14:55:29, Rodolph Perfetta wrote:
> > add DCHECK(csp.Is(StackPointer()));
> 
> Done.

lgtm, thanks.

[Yang, 2015-03-03 10:54:02]

On 2015/03/03 10:23:54, rmcilroy wrote:
> On 2015/03/02 15:08:49, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback. Now all I have to fix is Win64. :(
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc
> > File src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm/code-stubs-arm....
> > src/arm/code-stubs-arm.cc:974: __ tst(cp, cp);
> > On 2015/03/02 14:55:29, Rodolph Perfetta wrote:
> > > minor nit (and present in the original code): on ARM cmp(cp, Operand(0));
is
> > > more efficient.
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
> > File src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/960273002/diff/110020/src/arm64/code-stubs-ar...
> > src/arm64/code-stubs-arm64.cc:1038: 
> > On 2015/03/02 14:55:29, Rodolph Perfetta wrote:
> > > add DCHECK(csp.Is(StackPointer()));
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> lgtm, thanks.

LGTM.

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-03-03 11:59:27]

The CQ bit was checked by mstarzinger@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-03-03 12:00:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/960273002/170001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-03-03 12:03:10]

Committed patchset #10 (id:170001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-03-03 12:03:25]

Patchset 10 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4acbc93dbfe338adb217f4971e914f77afe504d9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#26957}