[webkit-dev] Reducing the use of EncodedJSValue and use JSValue directly instead.

[Filip Pizlo]

I think that this is great!

I agree with the policy that we should use JSValue everywhere that it would give us the same codegen/ABI (args in registers, return in registers, etc). 

-Filip

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 14:33, Mark Lam <mark.lam at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Over the holiday period, I looked into the possibility of giving EncodedJSValue a default constructor (because I didn’t like having to return encodedJSValue() instead of { } in lots of places), and learned why we had EncodedJSValue in the first place (i.e. for C linkage).  This led me to discover (in my reading of the code) that we don’t really need to use EncodedJSValue for most of our host functions (those of type NativeFunction, GetValueFunc, and PutValueFunc).  
> 
> I propose that we switch to using JSValue directly where we can.  This has the benefit of:
> 1. better type safety with the use of JSValue (EncodedJSValue is a int64_t typedef).
> 2. more readable code (less marshaling back and forth with JSValue::encode()/decode()).
> 
> The patch for this change can be found here:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166658
> 
> Perf is neutral.  Any opinions?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20170103/22873b5e/attachment.html>