<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - JavaScriptCore deeply nested "call" performance issue"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139847#c11">Comment # 11</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - JavaScriptCore deeply nested "call" performance issue"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139847">bug 139847</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:sbarati@apple.com" title="Saam Barati <sbarati@apple.com>"> <span class="fn">Saam Barati</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=139847#c7">comment #7</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=139847#c6">comment #6</a>)
> > My guess is we're recursively emitting bytecode in a way that has
> > exponential blowup.
>
> Yeah that's totally what's happening. That's hilarious.
>
> We should just have a back-off on that optimization. Like, maintain a count
> of how deep in the "doubling" due to .call, .apply, or other jneq_ptr-based
> opts. If more than K deep then don't do the optimization.
>
> Probably the most optimal way to do it would be upside down: don't do the
> optimization if there are more than K people below you in the tree who want
> to do it, so that the optimization kicks in for the leaves of that gross
> call tree.</span >
Yeah this sounds reasonable to me.</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>