review (S) for 6909839: missing unsigned compare cases for some cmoves in sparc.ad

[Tom Rodriguez]

On Jan 6, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:

> 
> On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:54 PM, John Rose wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~never/6909839
>> 
>> Looks good.  You might consider changing the pre-existing cmovII_U to cmovIIu for consistency.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> Also, did you intend to omit cmovNIu?  Your test case (or similar cases) could possibly fail in compressed oops VMs.
> 
> Good catch.  Not sure why I forgot that.  I'll add that and retest.

I wasn't able to get C2 to generate a CMoveN but I added an unsigned version of the existing CMoveN to cover that case.  I've updated the webrev.

tom

> 
> tom
> 
>> 
>> -- John
>