You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by lizhi <sl...@qq.com> on 2016/06/22 03:55:39 UTC
the base.js super call have gc bug
childCtor.base = function(me, methodName, var_args) {
// Copying using loop to avoid deop due to passing arguments object to
// function. This is faster in many JS engines as of late 2014.
var args = new Array(arguments.length - 2);
for (var i = 2; i < arguments.length; i++) {
args[i - 2] = arguments[i];
}
return parentCtor.prototype[methodName].apply(me, args);
};
aways new array
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
I am not familiar js. flexjs very good performance can be. But the super call
14.42%. If flexjs change here would be better. Such as super call, use
_parent.test ()? Getter, setter, use get_xxx (), set_xxx (). Everything for
performance, allowing flexjs apply to game development
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53518.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Do you have a simple test case that shows the performance difference?
-Alex
On 6/23/16, 6:50 PM, "lizhi" <sl...@qq.com> wrote:
>
>
>it is a test of the super call,and the super.test() have a p bug
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-cal
>l-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53514.html
>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53515.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
it is a test of the super call,and the super.test() have a p bug
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53514.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
hard to say.but the flexjs0.5 or flexjs0.6,are faster than flexjs0.7.
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53510.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
What does the patch that fixes this issue look like?
-Alex
On 6/22/16, 9:20 PM, "lizhi" <sl...@qq.com> wrote:
>yes,it is the google bug.i have open a iuuse of google.
>but,they maybe not fixed the bug.
>but the super call,getter,setter,etc...
>those thing are importentd.
>maybe those bug need fixed by me.
>it is are importend of the flexjs.
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-cal
>l-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53506.html
>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
yes,it is the google bug.i have open a iuuse of google.
but,they maybe not fixed the bug.
but the super call,getter,setter,etc...
those thing are importentd.
maybe those bug need fixed by me.
it is are importend of the flexjs.
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53506.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
https://www.sitepoint.com/google-closure-how-not-to-write-javascript/
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53507.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/21/16, 9:41 PM, "lizhi" <sl...@qq.com> wrote:
><http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/file/n53499/%E6%97%A
>0%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98.jpg>
>
>i upload a image,it maybe the google bug
Base.js is from Google Closure Library.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by lizhi <sl...@qq.com>.
<http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/file/n53499/%E6%97%A0%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98.jpg>
i upload a image,it maybe the google bug
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-call-have-gc-bug-tp53497p53499.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: the base.js super call have gc bug
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Isn't that Google's code? File a report with them.
-Alex
On 6/21/16, 8:55 PM, "lizhi" <sl...@qq.com> wrote:
> childCtor.base = function(me, methodName, var_args) {
> // Copying using loop to avoid deop due to passing arguments object to
> // function. This is faster in many JS engines as of late 2014.
> var args = new Array(arguments.length - 2);
> for (var i = 2; i < arguments.length; i++) {
> args[i - 2] = arguments[i];
> }
> return parentCtor.prototype[methodName].apply(me, args);
> };
>
>aways new array
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/the-base-js-super-cal
>l-have-gc-bug-tp53497.html
>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.