You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With JSVALUE64 (i.e. 64-bit platforms), JSValue boxes integers, pointers, doubles and a handful of special values using the NaN space. This requires adding or subtracting 2^49 to the encoded double to put things in convenient ranges.
I don't know what the overheads of boxing actually are, but when JSValue holds a capability, this boxing should be unnecessary. We should investigate adding a JSVALUECAP or similar, and implementing a simpler scheme. This would allow a more realistic performance comparison with purecap mode.
Note that this could be quite a big (if not difficult) task; the JSVALUE32_64-or-JSVALUE64 assumption is widespread, and probably also affects JIT code.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
With
JSVALUE64
(i.e. 64-bit platforms),JSValue
boxes integers, pointers, doubles and a handful of special values using the NaN space. This requires adding or subtracting2^49
to the encoded double to put things in convenient ranges.I don't know what the overheads of boxing actually are, but when
JSValue
holds a capability, this boxing should be unnecessary. We should investigate adding aJSVALUECAP
or similar, and implementing a simpler scheme. This would allow a more realistic performance comparison with purecap mode.Note that this could be quite a big (if not difficult) task; the
JSVALUE32_64
-or-JSVALUE64
assumption is widespread, and probably also affects JIT code.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: