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

[Tom Rodriguez]

I think I updated the wrong webrev.  Check it out now.

tom

On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> I don't see update. Webrev is still the same - no CMoveN changes.
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>> 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