[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 219297] [WASM-References] Add table.init

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219297

Yusuke Suzuki <ysuzuki at apple.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #415850|review?                     |review+, commit-queue-
              Flags|                            |

--- Comment #16 from Yusuke Suzuki <ysuzuki at apple.com> ---
Comment on attachment 415850
  --> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=415850
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=415850&action=review

r=me with one important optimization.

> Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmInstance.cpp:77
> +    m_passiveElements.resize(m_module->moduleInformation().elementCount());
> +    for (unsigned elementIndex = 0; elementIndex < m_passiveElements.size(); ++elementIndex) {
> +        const auto& element = m_module->moduleInformation().elements[elementIndex];
> +        if (element.isPassive())
> +            m_passiveElements[elementIndex] = element;
> +    }

I think m_passiveElements can be a BitVector, and this is better in terms of memory.
m_module is held by WasmInstance. And we can get corresponding element by m_module->moduleInformation().elements[index].
So, only thing we would like to know is that the given passive element is dropped or not.
Can you change it to save memory? WasmInstance is kept alive so long as wasm code is running. So saving memory is very important.

> Source/JavaScriptCore/wasm/WasmInstance.h:233
> +    Vector<Optional<Element>> m_passiveElements;

Let's make it BitVector.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20201210/a080c183/attachment.htm>