WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED FIXED
159528
Use Array.forEach in Headers built-in constructor
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=159528
Summary
Use Array.forEach in Headers built-in constructor
youenn fablet
Reported
2016-07-07 15:31:06 PDT
Array.forEach can be used if it is shielded from public scripts.
Attachments
Patch
(1.92 KB, patch)
2016-07-07 15:33 PDT
,
youenn fablet
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
youenn fablet
Comment 1
2016-07-07 15:33:52 PDT
Created
attachment 283068
[details]
Patch
Mark Lam
Comment 2
2016-07-11 13:02:52 PDT
Comment on
attachment 283068
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=283068&action=review
> Source/WebCore/Modules/fetch/FetchHeaders.js:44 > + @Array.prototype.@forEach.@call(headersInit, (header) => {
Is this required by the spec? If not, is there a perf implication to this change?
youenn fablet
Comment 3
2016-07-11 13:14:08 PDT
(In reply to
comment #2
)
> Comment on
attachment 283068
[details]
> Patch > > View in context: >
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=283068&action=review
> > > Source/WebCore/Modules/fetch/FetchHeaders.js:44 > > + @Array.prototype.@forEach.@call(headersInit, (header) => { > > Is this required by the spec? If not, is there a perf implication to this > change?
No, it is not required and I do not think this makes any perf improvement since Array.forEach is using a for loop as well. This just makes the code smaller here.
Mark Lam
Comment 4
2016-07-11 14:39:46 PDT
Comment on
attachment 283068
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=283068&action=review
>>> Source/WebCore/Modules/fetch/FetchHeaders.js:44 >>> + @Array.prototype.@forEach.@call(headersInit, (header) => { >> >> Is this required by the spec? If not, is there a perf implication to this change? > > No, it is not required and I do not think this makes any perf improvement since Array.forEach is using a for loop as well. > This just makes the code smaller here.
My concern is that it makes the code slower because you're adding a call to forEach which is not free, and it doesn't appear to be that much smaller. But maybe it's not such a big deal here. Just thought I'd ask.
youenn fablet
Comment 5
2016-07-12 03:00:20 PDT
Values iterator with a for-of loop seems a bit less expensive but it is still creating an iterator object. Maybe this is not worth it.
youenn fablet
Comment 6
2017-10-14 16:50:45 PDT
We no longer use builtins for creating headers thanks to improvement in the binding generator.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug