On 2013/01/24 21:58:06, adamk wrote:
From a quick discussion with rafaelw it seems likely that what I actually
want
here is some heuristic to decide between the new and the old approach,
based
on
how sparse the array is.
One more possibility would be to ignore ordering and simply iterate directly
over the SeededNumberDictionary backing store, emitting deletes for those
indices >= new_length.
And a more refined version of that would be to sort after collecting the old
values.
I'm not sure how much optimization is worthwhile here at the moment; the
biggest
win for observed array performance would be to find some way to use fast
backing
stores.
https://codereview.chromium.org/12041084/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
