On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:03 PM, hv1989 wrote:
>
> Just that measuring an empty loop is kinda pointless.
For anyone with a twitter account: "Microbenchmarks suck!" easily fits
into 140 chars.
N
___
dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list
dev-tech-js-
Tested on Aurora, score:
arrlen: 232
variable: 333
Like predicted. This has nothing to do about arr.length not getting
hoisted. Just that measuring an empty loop is kinda pointless.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Niels on twitter cited Firefox Aurora. Are you testing t
Niels on twitter cited Firefox Aurora. Are you testing tip shell, or
Firefox Nightly? Might be worth checking out Aurora. Thanks,
/be
hv1989 wrote:
So the given benchmark shows the speed is the same.
___
dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list
dev
So the given benchmark shows the speed is the same. And looking at the spew
of IonMonkey of LICM we do hoist the array.length.
But like said, small changes to the microbenchmark could change the speed
due to different things:
- compiled with OSR entry
- register allocation that require a move
- ca
hv1989 wrote:
This is really micro micro benchmarking. I mean the difference you
measure possibly isn't because we output different code, but due to
processor handling of the code.
Would more iterations help?
/be
___
dev-tech-js-engine-internals mai
We indeed can and do hoist array.length if we can observe it definitely
doesn't change. In the micro-benchmark provided we definitely can:
test.js:
function test_arr_length() {
var arr =
[1,2,3,4,5,6,8,43,43,4,432,432,432,432,432,432,432,32,542543,6536,5354,5,2532,432,4546,36,345,243,4,436,5,654
Jan, anyone:
https://twitter.com/phidip/status/425337790872973312
"In JS array.length is a property. Why is for(i=0;islower than for(i=0,len=array,length;i
Feel free to contact Niels directly (http://wefollow.com/phidip). Thanks,
/be
___
dev-tech-js-
7 matches
Mail list logo
