-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
http: explain the unused argument in IncomingMessage._read #37275
http: explain the unused argument in IncomingMessage._read #37275
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
Note to whoever lands this: there's a typo in the commit message that needs fixing (ImcomingMessage
-> IncomingMessage
).
cc @nodejs/http |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is needed for performance reason. This adds an additional frame in a very hot code path.
See also: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=10201
I'm -1 (strongly). This might be removed in the future.
@mcollina Thank you for giving the underlying performance consideration here. By giving that, this refactor should not be merged certainly. Should we add a comment here to explain the unused parameter? |
Yes please! |
00ec72b
to
3bc6cfa
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
FWIW this might not be a problem anymore after v8 8.9 https://v8.dev/blog/v8-release-89 |
@ronag It' awesome. I added a NOTE comment as remind of the posiblity of improvement when v8 engine is upgraded to v8.9 in the future. |
The failures seem related to memory exhaustion during compilation, or nothing related to these changes anyway. I am going to land this. |
PR-URL: #37275 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #37275 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
Landed in ad3ebed...9d2125e |
@dnlup should the commits be squashed into a single commit before landing? The commits seem to be addressing the same task of throwing light on the unused argument. |
@RaisinTen I have seen landing both multiple commits and squashed commits in other PRs. In this case, I thought keeping the last two commits would have given a bit more context (perhaps making a mistake?) |
@RaisinTen I see. It makes sense. However, maybe squashing now would be too much hassle? (Reverting then landing again, I guess). Thanks for pointing that out, though. |
PR-URL: #37275 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #37275 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #37275 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #37275 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Darshan Sen <raisinten@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>
It removes parameter
n
ofIncomingMessage
since it is not used in the function body.