- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:14:42 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 --- Comment #32 from Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> --- (In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #31) > Marking an ArrayBuffer immutable because one view on it is passed to an API > is a bit weird: it makes all the other views read-only as well, which is a > pretty nonlocal effect.... No, different from neutering in that regard. And certainly the most common situation is a single view over the entire buffer. The advantage, is that it places the burden of copying on specific callers that are dealing with shared buffers rather than having the callee unilaterally copying everything. It also chains nicely, avoiding multiple layers of redundant copying > > Past that, I don't know of any reasons it couldn't be done offhand, though > the JIT folks may have concerns. should be any worse than neutering, and the same write guard could probably be used for both. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 17:14:44 UTC