Closed Bug 1485162 Opened 7 years ago Closed 7 years ago

remove confusing StackDecrementForCall() overloads

Categories

(Core :: JavaScript: WebAssembly, enhancement)

enhancement
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla63
Tracking Status
firefox63 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: luke, Assigned: luke)

Details

Attachments

(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

There are 3 overloads for StackDecrementForCall(): one shared with all Ion that makes sense, and 2 that do special stuff and superficially look the same as the shared one. I'm always confusing these so I think it's better to have all of WasmStubs.cpp just use the one common one. This requires being a bit explicit about what has been pushed for the alreadyPushed argument, but I think that's actually good.
Attached patch kill-overloadsSplinter Review
Assignee: nobody → luke
Attachment #9002933 - Flags: review?(bbouvier)
Attached patch rm-dead-fieldSplinter Review
Attachment #9002934 - Flags: review?(bbouvier)
Comment on attachment 9002933 [details] [diff] [review] kill-overloads Review of attachment 9002933 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ha nice, I've been confused by these overloads in the past. ::: js/src/wasm/WasmStubs.cpp @@ +983,5 @@ > AssertExpectedSP(masm); > > GenerateFunctionPrologue(masm, funcTypeId, Nothing(), offsets); > > + unsigned framePushed = StackDecrementForCall(WasmStackAlignment, In every single other case, it was obvious that masm.framePushed() is 0 because of a visible previous call to setFramePushed(0). Here, it's more subtle; there's an assertion at the end of GenerateFunctionPrologue, but this knowledge is hidden within the function's body. Could we re-assert here instead? or comment?
Attachment #9002933 - Flags: review?(bbouvier) → review+
Comment on attachment 9002934 [details] [diff] [review] rm-dead-field Review of attachment 9002934 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sweet, thanks.
Attachment #9002934 - Flags: review?(bbouvier) → review+
(In reply to Benjamin Bouvier [:bbouvier] from comment #3) > Could we re-assert here instead? or comment? Good point! It is a rather subtle detail so I improved all the calls so that they are either (1) using masm.framePushed(), (2) using sizeof(Frame) with a comment "// pushed by prologue". (Can't assert b/c the constant is usually computed before the Generate*Prologue(), so masm.framePushed() is 0 before and sizeof(Frame)+framePushed after.)
Pushed by lwagner@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/249688402db2 remove dead CodeGeneratorShared field (r=bbouvier) https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5ff39f587a0d Baldr: remove confusing StackDecrementForCall() overloads (r=bbouvier)
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla63
Flags: needinfo?(afuerhoff00)
Attachment #9052091 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #9052091 - Flags: checkin+
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: