Current spec places no limits (other than being a number) on typed array/array buffer length
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Gadd <[email protected]> wrote: > I previously had a discussion with someone about Typed Array sizes in > particular - at present it seems like no existing implementation of Typed > Arrays will allow you to allocate one larger than 2GB, regardless of the > actual numeric types being used. But when I did a quick scan of the Safari, > Chrome and Spidermonkey implementations, I found some uses of ToInt32 and > equivalent operations instead of ToUInt32 - which would imply being limited > to a maximum index that fits into a positive 32-bit integer. > > Being able to allocate a 4GB typed array on a 64-bit machine, if not one > even bigger than that, would certainly be welcome. > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dmitry Lomov wrote: >> >>> If people agree this is generally a thing to be avoided, I am happy to >>> collect a systematic list of these issues and suggest fixes - but maybe I >>> am missing something and that has some deep motivation? >>> >> >> No, please collect and file at bugs.ecmascript.org -- these are indeed >> errors in the draft. We need to throw on negative length. We must *not* >> spec clamping negative indexes to 0 at runtime. Other deviations from >> Khronos and implementation need to be considered carefully in light of >> performance and safety (which are not always at odds). >> >> Thanks to you and Domenic for flagging. >> >> /be >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> > > > > -- > -kg >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
