On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Nathan Froyd <nfr...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Ben Kelly <bke...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Tristan Bourvon <tbour...@mozilla.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Here's the RFC of the overflow builtins: > >> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/RFC-Introduce- > >> overflow-builtins-td3838320.html > >> Along with the tracking issue: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_ > bug.cgi?id=12290 > >> And the patch: > >> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/ > 98d1ec1e99625176626b0bcd44cef7 > >> df6e89b289 > >> > >> There's also another patch that was added on top of this one which adds > >> more overflow builtins: > >> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/ > c41c63fbf84cc904580e733d1123d3 > >> b03bb5584c > >> > >> It seems clear that this optimization could bring big performance > >> improvements on hot functions. It could also reduce binary size > >> substantially (we're talking about 14->5 instructions in their case). > >> > > > > Do we have a bug filed to investigate these overflow builtins? Should we > > file one? > > There is bug 1356936 for mozilla::CheckedInt; I don't know how many > saturating-style arithmetic implementations we have in the tree, or > whether similar bugs exist for those. > I guess my impression was this would be something we would want the jit to emit in its bytecode. But maybe I don't fully understand. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
