Updates:
Cc: [email protected] [email protected]
Comment #10 on issue 4317 by [email protected]: @@isConcatSpreadable
is ignored by Array.prototype.concat when the arguments are arrays
https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=4317
While I agree that having several implementations of this and other array
functions is annoying, I'm not sure I like the idea of removing the C++
builtin. At the very least, please test with a microbenchmark that
specifically hits the cases that the builtin handles. I wouldn't be
surprised if Array.concat just wasn't enough of a bottleneck in Octane to
affect the overall score; but that doesn't necessarily imply that its
performance doesn't matter at all.
In general, it has repeatedly emerged as a good rule of thumb to have a
canonical C++ implementation for everything, meaning that it handles all
cases correctly. Any additional implementations are then just optimized
paths. For non-trivial operations in particular, handling the entire
operation in C++ may well be faster than having to perform a couple
back-and-forth calls between JS and C. Based on this view, fixing the C++
array builtins to handle more/all cases is one of our medium-term to-do
items.
Maybe a reasonable way forward for now is to have the C++ builtin bail out
to the JS implementation in the case discussed above?
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
--
--
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.
