I think that benchmarker is doubly bad because of moma's cache headers. I will try to investigate something better tomorrow, but I still think the win should be relatively the same.
-- dean On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Dean McNamee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just came up with a bad benchmarker here: > > http://www.corp.google.com/~deanm/tmp/chrome/dommod/run.html > > This now runs in half the time or more on my machine. Usually around > 8s with my patch, otherwise around 17s. Although, I don't know if I > have confidence my patch is actually correct :) > > I will try to run it through some tests tomorrow. Any idea on good > tests to exercise the wrapper GC code, to make sure I did break > anything and the grouping isn't working? > > Thanks > > -- dean > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:31 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> LGTM, >> >> my only comment is that, in the future, we might want to expose a >> collection-like interface (or V8 understand a collection-like interface) >> so the API can use the collection interface rather than an array of >> pointers. >> >> On 2008/12/10 14:23:42, Dean McNamee wrote: >>> >>> I tried a handful of approaches, and this ended up being the cleanest. >> >> Keeping >>> >>> a HashMap on V8's side was very cumbersome. There is still some >> >> confusion >>> >>> between who owns the global list (between global-handles and >> >> mark-compact), but >>> >>> I'm not going to address that now. >>> >>> I think pushing the most of this to the caller is the best thing we >> >> can do. >>> >>> This will make it easier to tune things on the bindings side. >>> >>> This makes an API change, but I suspect we're the only users of this >> >> API. >>> >>> V8 bindings change review coming up right now. >> >> >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/13341 >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
