On 2015/04/02 15:32:48, caitp wrote:
On 2015/04/02 15:19:33, arv wrote:
> I'm also curious what your long term plan is? The desugaring is kind of
heavy
> and it would be better if we directly populated the stack instead of
going
> through temporary arrays.
It would be... That was actually the first approach taken, but it was a
problem
for TF and not popular with the compiler guys. With dynamic argument
counts,
the
compiler is missing a lot of information, and might not be able to reason
about
what to do if something goes wrong (among other things).
Yes, the direct manipulation of dynamically-sized stack portions is an
issue not
just for the compiler, but deoptimization, security, etc.
I think the long term solution should be to use a small but fixed size
(e.g. 16)
stack-allocated buffer that can be used for small spreads and then overflow
to
the full-blown array code in the uncommon case of large spread calls.
Obviously,
if the compiler can figure out the static size of the spread, it should be
able
to just expand it inline.
Thanks for taking the less efficient but more composable solution first; we
can
do a better job later when more pieces fit together.
https://codereview.chromium.org/938443002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
