- fixed IJMP code generation for the JIT compiler.

With a proper count value available this can be done properly. The only relevant targets are the jumps immediately succeeding the IJMP instructions, nothing else.
This commit is contained in:
Christoph Oelckers 2018-11-17 13:39:14 +01:00
parent fcb5684607
commit 89cec539fa
2 changed files with 6 additions and 9 deletions

View File

@ -25,24 +25,21 @@ void JitCompiler::EmitJMP()
void JitCompiler::EmitIJMP()
{
// This uses the whole function as potential jump targets. Can the range be reduced?
int i = (int)(ptrdiff_t)(pc - sfunc->Code);
int base = (int)(ptrdiff_t)(pc - sfunc->Code) + 1;
auto val = newTempInt32();
cc.mov(val, regD[A]);
cc.add(val, i + (int)BCs + 1);
int size = sfunc->CodeSize;
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
for (int i = 0; i < (int)BCs; i++)
{
if (sfunc->Code[i].op == OP_JMP)
if (sfunc->Code[base +i].op == OP_JMP)
{
int target = i + JMPOFS(&sfunc->Code[i]) + 1;
int target = base + i + JMPOFS(&sfunc->Code[base + i]) + 1;
cc.cmp(val, i);
cc.je(GetLabel(target));
}
}
pc += BCs;
// This should never happen. It means we are jumping to something that is not a JMP instruction!
EmitThrowException(X_OTHER);

View File

@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static int ExecScriptFunc(VMFrameStack *stack, VMReturn *ret, int numret)
NEXTOP;
OP(IJMP):
ASSERTD(a);
pc += (BCs + reg.d[a]);
pc += (reg.d[a]);
assert(pc[1].op == OP_JMP);
pc += 1 + JMPOFS(pc+1);
NEXTOP;