201158 2019-08-26 16:08:10 -0700 [JSC] JSPromise should work with object-allocation-sinking 2019-08-30 16:59:23 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit JavaScriptCore WebKit Nightly Build Unspecified Unspecified NEW InRadar P2 Normal --- 1 ysuzuki ysuzuki saam webkit-bug-importer oldest_to_newest 1565140 0 ysuzuki 2019-08-26 16:08:10 -0700 ... 1565141 1 webkit-bug-importer 2019-08-26 16:08:32 -0700 <rdar://problem/54726575> 1566840 2 saam 2019-08-30 15:29:27 -0700 won't inlining the constructor which will be written in JS now sink the executor function? 1566843 3 ysuzuki 2019-08-30 15:37:03 -0700 (In reply to Saam Barati from comment #2) > won't inlining the constructor which will be written in JS now sink the > executor function? I would like to sink JSPromise object itself too when it can be done. 1566847 4 ysuzuki 2019-08-30 15:38:23 -0700 One possible thing (I'm not talking about whether it is possible in our implementation) is, Promise.resolve(42).then(function (value) { // }); Promise.resolve's returning promise is essentially unnecessary. 1566876 5 saam 2019-08-30 16:28:52 -0700 (In reply to Yusuke Suzuki from comment #4) > One possible thing (I'm not talking about whether it is possible in our > implementation) is, > > Promise.resolve(42).then(function (value) { > // > }); > > Promise.resolve's returning promise is essentially unnecessary. Yeah it would be nice too. But is this common? Maybe through inlining it might become common. That said, don't we need the intermediate promise because "function (value)" isn't called until next run loop tick? 1566888 6 ysuzuki 2019-08-30 16:59:23 -0700 (In reply to Saam Barati from comment #5) > (In reply to Yusuke Suzuki from comment #4) > > One possible thing (I'm not talking about whether it is possible in our > > implementation) is, > > > > Promise.resolve(42).then(function (value) { > > // > > }); > > > > Promise.resolve's returning promise is essentially unnecessary. > > Yeah it would be nice too. But is this common? > > Maybe through inlining it might become common. That said, don't we need the > intermediate promise because "function (value)" isn't called until next run > loop tick? In the above example, Promise.resolve's promise is unnecessary. It is already resolved. Microtask only contains reactions of Promises, and value for resolution, so Promise object itself is not necessary.