JM backend to be fully ABI-compliant (prerequisite for IonMonkey)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've had enough. Tonight, I did all the work to get JM+TI to have a proper 
arguments area, adjusted all the constants and ran all the initial tests that 
were known to require messing with the stack pointer and they all work. We will 
need this for IonMonkey anyway since it uses the C-stack, so now we will be 
fully ABI compliant for 17.

Stack frame increases from 128 to 160 bytes. Hopefully this doesn't break the 
bank.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 18 Sep 2012 at 2:16

• Blocking: IonMonkey PPC backend #178, TenFourFox 17 #107, methodjit crashes with compiler (gcc) optimizations turned off #150

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 18 Sep 2012 at 2:16

• Now blocking: IonMonkey PPC backend #178

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 18 Sep 2012 at 2:17

• Now blocking: TenFourFox 17 #107

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Even after that, typed arrays still need a larger than normal argument area. 
(The MonoIC and js_Internal_Interpret kludges could be removed.) Dithering over 
increasing it further, or leaving the stack pointer gyration.

Original comment by [email protected] on 18 Sep 2012 at 2:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ben, check my math. I'm going through jstypedarray.cpp and I can't find 
anything that has more than 7 arguments (so, counting "this", we should still 
be within the 8). Am I blind?

Incidentally, this post is coming from Firefox 17, so I think most of our 
issues are fixed.

Original comment by [email protected] on 18 Sep 2012 at 2:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 150 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by [email protected] on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:15

• Now blocking: methodjit crashes with compiler (gcc) optimizations turned off #150

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Now that BaselineCompiler has landed, JM doesn't even get enabled in that 
configuration (when BC+IM+TI), so further work is pointless.

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Apr 2013 at 1:40

• Changed state: WontFix