I've actually found this limit in the past [1] mostly for string operations and I remember it was already discussed in here.
2048 was a safe bet for all browsers I could test those days, but it'b be very nice if any generic function, accordingly with the environment capabilities, could expose somehow a `Function.MAX_SAFE_ARGUMENTS_LENGTH` like property, similar to what `Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER` does already. Regards [1] 2011 post: http://webreflection.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/about-javascript-apply-arguments-limit.html On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Caitlin Potter <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a note about the whole upper bounds on arguments thing > > In V8’s case (per the comment regarding io.js), the maximum arguments > count for Function.prototype.apply/Reflect.apply/Reflect.construct > is 0x800000 ( > https://github.com/v8/v8-git-mirror/blob/81345f1a2cdceaee8c891fc7512ae671f171308e/src/macros.py#L75) > — On a 64mb system, this ends up being close to 70mb of data which the > engine pushes to the stack, in addition to being on the heap in the array > itself — which is not super tiny, but a desktop machine can probably handle > a lot more. This isn’t a “real” stack overflow, because the RangeError is > thrown before any arguments are actually pushed to the stack — it’s just an > upper bound on the size of the array which can be pushed. SpiderMonkey has > a similar arbitrary upper bounds on the argument length, ARGS_LENGTH_MAX ( > https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev/blob/d03ee825c74355f070b14cf4325897c813373902/js/src/vm/ArgumentsObject.h#L77) > or 0x7A120, which is a much more conservative limit. Apparently nobody has > complained about the smaller limit, so that’s something =) > > I guess what this means is, people aren’t generally depending on being > able to push zillions of arguments to the stack via fn.apply — it’s almost > always one of two things: either a small-ish array literal, or an actual > Arguments object, which most likely doesn’t contain zillions of arguments > either. These limits don’t seem unreasonable, and it’s probably okay to > figure out an appropriate limit (especially for mobile devices) that still > makes developers happy. > > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > > C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > I'm just saying: it's not safe to spread an arbitrary array into > `arguments` unless the spec explicitly says that the number of arguments is > limited only by heap size (not stack size) or something like that. The ES6 > spec does not contain any such language. > > > We've talked about this in past meetings. We want implementations and > developers to cooperate and compete, to find a normative spec we can back. > It would be silly for us to "pick a number". > > /be > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
