> On Mar 13, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
> I just thought you might be interested in this benchmark.
Please stop email this list until you provide benchmark results replacing
JavaScriptCore’s GC. The benchmarks you are providing are irrelevant to
On 03/11/2016 09:56 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 03/06/2016 10:57 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
True but if block_ptr<> is 10x faster than the Mark & Sweep GC then I
think we got something perhaps worth investigating.
- For the record, now block_ptr<> is 600% times faster than shared_ptr<>
so
On 03/06/2016 10:57 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
True but if block_ptr<> is 10x faster than the Mark & Sweep GC then I
think we got something perhaps worth investigating.
- For the record, now block_ptr<> is 600% times faster than shared_ptr<>
so it's a good start:
new:
auto_ptr:
On 03/06/2016 10:36 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
No :( It's pretty relevant that GC in JavaScriptCore was written for
JavaScriptCore. In particular, JSC doesn't focus on optimizing binary
size, memory usage, etc... for embeddable devices so I would expect
the performance characteristics to be
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 03/06/2016 10:17 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>
>>> That should speed up my benchmarking process.
>>
>>
>> It will also make your
I know, it wouldn't be worth integrating in that case but at least I
have a way to compare.
On 03/06/2016 10:30 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
Phil,
I think you need to do better than this.
-Filip
On Mar 6, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
It is very subjective but
Phil,
I think you need to do better than this.
-Filip
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2016 10:17 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>
>>> That should speed up my
On 03/06/2016 10:17 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
That should speed up my benchmarking process.
It will also make your benchmarking process inconclusive for the purpose of
evaluating a memory manager’s performance relative to
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2016 12:59 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>
>> Anyway I am not sure if I can create a patch within a short period of
>> time but if I happen to have an interesting Javascript benchmark then I
>> will repost it to
On 03/06/2016 09:37 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
FYI, XS6 is another popular JS engine for embedded devices:
http://kinoma.com
- R. Niwa
Thanks. It looks like this one is written in Java...
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
FYI, XS6 is another popular JS engine for embedded devices:
http://kinoma.com
- R. Niwa
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 03/06/2016 12:59 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anyway I am not sure if I can create a patch within a short period of
>>
On 03/06/2016 12:59 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Anyway I am not sure if I can create a patch within a short period of
time but if I happen to have an interesting Javascript benchmark then I
will repost it to this mailing list.
Hmmm... I just want to say there are embeddable JS engines out there:
Thanks for the references, I will take a look.
But about performance, a GC is perhaps faster for a period of time but
when the collector kicks in we notice a CPU usage spiking for a bit
followed by a performance slowdown on some Javascript animation,
specially on a embedded box with 1 or 2
Phil,
I would expect our GC to be much faster than shared_ptr. This shouldn’t really
be surprising; it’s the expected behavior according to the GC literature.
High-level languages avoid the kind of eager reference counting that shared_ptr
does because it’s too expensive. I would expect a
On 03/05/2016 01:02 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 03/05/2016 12:49 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
If you're right then you've resolved CS problems dating back to the
50's. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You haven't
provided any evidence.
It wasn't easy to implement but it's done
On 03/05/2016 12:49 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
If you're right then you've resolved CS problems dating back to the 50's.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You haven't provided any
evidence.
It wasn't easy to implement but it's done now so we can all move forward.
Replacing
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>
>> On 03/05/2016 12:07 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> You made a similar post in December 2014:
>> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2014-December/027113.html
>>
>> Are you suggesting you have
On 03/05/2016 12:07 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
Hi Phil,
You made a similar post in December 2014:
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2014-December/027113.html
Are you suggesting you have done or ready to do the following?
I just completed the implementation of block_ptr<> but I am
Hi Phil,
You made a similar post in December 2014:
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2014-December/027113.html
Are you suggesting you have done or ready to do the following?
> Let’s be clear, though: we’re unlikely to accept a patch in which all of our
> JS object references are
19 matches
Mail list logo