On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jer Noble <jer.noble@apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I just checked with SpiderMonkey folks. The way that SM handles this is > by separating the typed array "type" information based on the allocation > site, and only deoptimize the access for typed arrays that share the same > "type", so if you have a typed array that gets neutered in location X in > your code, it will only deoptimize the accesses for typed arrays coming > from that place in the code. > > So, no, SM doesn't suffer from the same problem as JSC does, and I see no > reason why this cannot be fixed in JSC (well, other than engineering time, > the complexity of the fix and all of the other usual suspects.) But like I > said, this is already affecting other parts of the web platform anyway. > > > This still implies either a memory or CPU cost in tracking the allocations > sites for every ArrayBuffer. > Absolutely! Neutering an array buffer is not a free operation. I was just trying to say that the pathological behavior that JSC has is a bug in JSC which can be fixed, given the fact that there is at least one other implementation which implements the same concept without suffering from this problem. -- Ehsan <http://ehsanakhgari.org/>
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 19:06:36 UTC