Bug 1542744 Comment 5 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

>I suspect some SafeBrowsing crashes[2] during an update is because we manipulate too many small nsTArray

>his approach should be able to save a lot of memory reallocation overhead.


"Memory allocation overhead" is not relevant given the frequency of SafeBrowsing updates, and by itself "manipulate too many small nsTArray" is meaningless - there's nothing against doing so.

This smells like making some random changes because we're unable to find the root cause of a bug.
>I suspect some SafeBrowsing crashes[2] during an update is because we manipulate too many small nsTArray

>his approach should be able to save a lot of memory reallocation overhead.


"Memory allocation overhead" is not relevant given the frequency of SafeBrowsing updates, and by itself "manipulate too many small nsTArray" is meaningless - there's nothing against doing so.

This smells like making some random changes because we're unable to find the root cause of a bug. Maybe it's OOM related, sure, but then that's an even bigger reason to get good data, because the second patch will increase your OOM problems.

Back to Bug 1542744 Comment 5