This is a separated bug not to forget about the patch from comment 121414#c63 which is not a part of the last patch for bug 121414. For details, see comments 55 - 63 in the bug.

I hope this would not interrupt the work on bug 121414.

Thanks, I wasn't going to forget about those, but I was hoping to work them into a future patch. We can take your patch now and do it the other way, for sure, but I would like to land the patch for bug 121414 first. That makes you do the merge, which isn't really fair. But I thought I'd ask ;-). I can do the merge and land the other way 'round. Thoughts? /be

(In reply to comment #2) > but I would like to land the patch for bug 121414 first. That is OK: that "review?" had ping as hidden agenda in any case ;)

Dependency on bug 121414 is to know when to update the patch.

Here is a patch update after landing of attachment 203610 [details] [diff] [review] from bug 121414 plus fix with proper handling of 0 negation when the previous patch would leave 0 coming from int jsval as 0. The patch shows the following improvements for test case from attachment 145601 [details] for optimized build of jsshell on Pentium II 360MHz laptop with Fedora Core 4/ GCC 4.0.1: +-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ | Test | Before | After | Speedup | |-------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Test 1 | 2986 ms | 1814 ms | 65% | |-------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Test 2 | 2633 ms | 1666 ms | 58% | |-------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Test 3 | 2912 ms | 2359 ms | 23% | +-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ These are much higher speedups then ones that were before landing of threaded interpreted patch. In fact the combined effect of these patches is almost 2 times faster execution of test1. Perhaps I do not need to upgrade the laptop after all;)

Comment on attachment 203709 [details] [diff] [review] Update patch and -0 fix Nice! /be

I committed the fix but I keep the bug as assigned until 121414 would be marked as fixed.

I just reverted my commit: the patch contained bogus assertion in JSOP_NEG implementation: even if initially rval is not int jsval, the result still may fit to int jsval in cases like when rval is "1". Proper patch in a moment.

Comment on attachment 203735 [details] [diff] [review] Patch with proper optimization of JSOP_NEG r=me /be

The last patch is in CVS

Fresh compile with MSVC2003 using the testcases from bug 121414. +-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ | Test | Before | After | Speedup | |-------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Test 1 | 312 ms | 250 ms | 19.8% | |-------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Test 2 | 281 ms | 234 ms | 16.7% | |-------------|-------------|-------------|---------| | Test 3 | 360 ms | 344 ms | 4.4% | +-------------+-------------+-------------+---------+ Nice boost in tests 1 and 2 again :)

Marking as fixed: I forgot to do that around 2005-11-21.