I suggest reading Boehm's classic paper Destructors, Finalizers and
Synchronization (http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2002/HPL-2002-335.pdf,
slides at http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/popl03/slides.pdf)
before starting yet another finalizer thread (pun intended ;-). The problem
is that
Regarding object pooling: What you describe is exactly one of the use cases
where one should *not* use object pooling. Incremental collectors are very
good at disposing short-lived objects without any noticeable pauses, so
unless you are doing heavy resource acquisition on object creation, don't
When you are using an object as a hash map, using delete is OK, because
then the object is very probably already in dictionary (= hash map) mode.
Playing GC by hand is not necessary and almost always the wrong thing,
anyway.
Is there a semantic reason for the structuring of the keys or do you
First of all, I would strongly advise against object pooling in a language
with GC. Most of the time it creates far more problems than it solves, and
one of the few valid use cases is when object creation is extremely costly,
like e.g. for data base connections, but it seems that this is not the
We only track property additions, because these are by far the most common
case. Deleting a property results in going to slow mode, i.e. using a
dictionary for the object's properties. So as a general rule of thumb,
using 'delete' makes thing slower.
What are you trying to achieve exactly?
v8's JSON parser is written almost completely in C++, with no eval
involved:
http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/branches/bleeding_edge/src/json.js
There is some JavaScript glue around it (plus the code for stringify) here:
Ooops, the first URL should have been
http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/branches/bleeding_edge/src/json-parser.h,
sorry...
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 15:50, Sven Panne svenpa...@chromium.org wrote:
v8's JSON parser is written almost completely in C++, with no eval
involved:
http
There were some breaking changes in the lexical syntax of Python (rarely a
good idea IMHO), namely octal literals. Since 2.6.1, 0o is required as a
prefix, previously it was simply 0. You seem to be using Python 2.5.1,
which is too old for our build system. You could try hacking the relevant
part
This was probably http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=1487, fixed
yesterday http://codereview.chromium.org/7210012/.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:24, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@chromium.orgwrote:
Tests are still failing with v8-3.4.3, the same way as before. What should
I do to
Finalizers are more complicated than most people think, and they are *not* a
replacement for destructors! Reading Boehm's classic paper Destructors,
Finalizers, and Synchronization (
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2002/HPL-2002-335.html) can help
understanding all issues involved before blaming
101 - 110 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
