Performance improvements, 17s vs 19s. On 2009/01/09 14:29:00, Dean McNamee wrote: > Before: > ["FIXED_ARRAY_TYPE", 3238656], > > After: > ["FIXED_ARRAY_TYPE", 216438], > > More than 10x less FIXED_ARRAY_TYPEs were GC'd in my test code. > > On 2009/01/09 13:45:23, Kasper Lund wrote: > > LGTM, but I think you should extend the test case to make sure the > normalization > > code has been tested and that the filler objects can be GC'ed correctly. > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/17308/diff/213/17 > > File src/objects.cc (right): > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/17308/diff/213/17#newcode1919 > > Line 1919: Object* filler_map = Heap::AllocateMap(FILLER_TYPE, > > instance_size_delta); > > It seems a bit nasty to have to allocate a new map for the filler object. How > > about just using a fixed array if it fits (at least two words) or a simple > > one-word filler otherwise? > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/17308/diff/213/18 > > File src/runtime.cc (right): > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/17308/diff/213/18#newcode105 > > Line 105: int number_of_properties = constant_properties->length()/2; > > Spaces around / operator? > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/17308/diff/213/14 > > File test/mjsunit/large-object-literal.js (right): > > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/17308/diff/213/14#newcode29 > > Line 29: var nofProperties = 256; > > How about refactoring this test code so that nofProperties is a parameter to a > > function and try it with different values like 1,2,5,35,150,255,256,280 and > > maybe extending it to force the object into normal case and also force a GC to > > make sure everything works with the normalization before checking the property > > values?
http://codereview.chromium.org/17308 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
