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

[John Rose]

Looks good.  -- John

On Jan 6, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:

> 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
>