<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [JSC] Implement parsing of Async Functions"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161409#c7">Comment # 7</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [JSC] Implement parsing of Async Functions"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161409">bug 161409</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:utatane.tea@gmail.com" title="Yusuke Suzuki <utatane.tea@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Yusuke Suzuki</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=161409#c6">comment #6</a>)
<span class="quote">> So, experimenting with this a bit, I'm finding that those "expensive
> branches" identified by Yusuke Suzuki can be (mostly) mitigated in the
> benchmarks by moving their contents to never-inlined functions. I guess this
> makes the on-stack allocation for the more commonly executed code smaller,
> and means the only extra work the "commonly executed" code has to do is the
> interned string comparison (testing if a particular string is "async" or
> not), which should be pretty cheap.
>
> The biggest one of these in the jQuery benchmark is, according to
> Instruments.app, the one in parseStatement(). Uninlining these rare branches
> might be a good way to go, but I'd appreciate a second set of eyes measuring
> that solution using different tools and settings as well.
>
> Some benchmark runs (just with jquery) with 4 VM runs and 10 inner runs:
>
> ```
> Collected 40 samples per benchmark/VM, with 4 VM invocations per benchmark.
> Emitted a call to
> gc() between sample measurements. Used 1 benchmark iteration per VM
> invocation for warm-up. Used
> the jsc-specific preciseTime() function to get microsecond-level timing.
> Reporting benchmark
> execution times with 95% confidence intervals in milliseconds.
>
> 1)
> Baseline Patched
>
>
> jquery 6.76557+-0.13436 ? 6.89083+-0.08124 ?
> might be 1.0185x slower
>
> <geometric> 6.76557+-0.13436 ? 6.89083+-0.08124 ?
> might be 1.0185x slower
>
> 2)
> Baseline Patched
>
>
> jquery 7.06592+-0.09167 7.03025+-0.07808
>
> <geometric> 7.06592+-0.09167 7.03025+-0.07808
> might be 1.0051x faster
> ```
>
> So, I dunno, that seems like an improvement over the existing regression to
> me.</span >
Great! Did you already upload the updated patch?</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>