On the question of optimizing closures to entrain only what's used, I
say VMs should get around to it as they feel the competitive need,
without worrying about weak refs observing whether it's a supported
optimization.
Weak refs are necessary for observer patterns, as we've discussed ad
nauseum. I don't think we're going to reject them just because of
potential observable closure-optimization interop breaks.
/be
David Bruant wrote:
Le 27/07/2013 18:22, K. Gadd a écrit :
Of course, I don't know how difficult it actually is to fix this.
Difficulty is obviously one major concern. If this was easy to fix, I
imagine it would have already been done; JS engine maintainers don't
keep easy-to-fix leaks for fun.
Also, apparently, it was easy in SpiderMonkey to make a tool that does
the analysis [1]. A comment by Jeff Walden [2] suggests that the leak
may not be fixed in the short term, though. The reason is that the
analysis to figure out which variable to keep track of is a bit costly
and doing it upfront would slow down JS runtime performance.
Performance is a finite blanket; pulling one way uncovers another
part. It takes a massive amount of work to have a slightly wider blanket.
David
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=894669
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=894669#c10
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
