On 2015/05/05 16:06:19, jochen wrote:
If a SAB behaves like an AB of you don't use the correct atomics, we could
basically allow atomic operations on ABs as well - since they can't be
shared,
nothing can go wrong.
True.
It sounds like all we need is a bunch of constructors that create regular
ABs
and set a bit in addition that this AB can be shared.
Yes, that is how ncbray@'s prototype worked. But if a SAB is just an AB,
then it
means that a SAB can be passed to APIs that expect ABs, which we don't want.
Similarly, we don't want all the ArrayBuffer APIs to be available to SAB
(e.g.
ArrayBuffer.slice, ArrayBuffer.transfer, etc.)
Or are you thinking that SAB is a type that is only available to Blink, not
v8?
Perhaps that is possible -- though I'm not sure how the v8 type <-> Blink
type
coercion works if the v8 type is shared between two Blink types.
Then we only need to check this bit when we need to decide whether to
neuter
or
share the AB for postMessage.
https://codereview.chromium.org/1069883002/
--
--
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.
