avm2: Express Array.removeAt in terms of splice #21689
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
danielhjacobs
added
A-avm2
|
There were discussions about it with @adrian17. TL;DR the behavior is different for dense/sparse/simple/... arrays, FP has fast paths. We should probably add tests and cover all those cases before we do significant refactors |
|
I'll take a look at that. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The insertremove test seems to indicate that removeAt needs the same resolve_array_hole logic that splice has.
Hence, I created splice_internal that splice, insertAt and removeAt are now expressed in terms of.
Also, insertAt previously returned an array with the removed elements, which it seems it should not do (The function signature doesn't suggest it should and there are no tests for it). Now it just returns undefined.
Splice_internal also collects directly into an ArrayStorage instead of an intermediate Vec as that seemed unnecessary.