Closed Bug 969410 Opened 7 years ago Closed 7 years ago
Figure out what to do with JS
_Get Object Id in a moving GC world
The current implementation returns the pointer, basically, but of course in a moving GC world that can change.
Hmm. The only call site I see is here: https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/xbl/nsXBLBinding.cpp#957 and what that code wants is a WeakMap. For correctness reasons, too. One potential fix, then is to make our C++ WeakMap template usable for XBL's use case.
I'm pretty sure we can nix our one in-tree caller, yes. I can't speak for other API consumers. But yes, "remove this API" would be a viable thing to do, for sure.
(In reply to Jason Orendorff [:jorendorff] from comment #1) > Hmm. The only call site I see is here: > https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/xbl/nsXBLBinding.cpp#957 > and what that code wants is a WeakMap. For correctness reasons, too. Does it actually want to be weak? At the moment we basically just define as a prop on the global, which pegs its lifetime to that of the scope. Getting rid of that behavior would be great, FWIW. > One potential fix, then is to make our C++ WeakMap template usable for XBL's > use case. We're probably going to want to expose that stuff anyway to store expandos for Xray-to-JS wrappers.
My vote is for "kill with fire" and figure out something more reasonable for the consumer to do there.
Another option that could at least unblock GGC in the near term is to unconditionally do a MinorGC before returning the address. This isn't going to help compacting GC though, so we will still need to kill this interface asap.
This should at least prevent catastrophe in the near term. I'll mark the bug leave-open so we don't forget to make a real fix here.
Note that I did the leg-work here to expose WeakMaps to the browser in bug 973780.
Comment on attachment 8379201 [details] [diff] [review] do_not_expose_nursery_objects_in_getobjectid-v0.diff This seems like it can't possibly work, since "obj" is a JSObject*, not a handle, right? Probably need to handlify the API while we're here.
O_O I'm really not sure how I managed to not notice that.
Comment on attachment 8379805 [details] [diff] [review] do_not_expose_nursery_objects_in_getobjectid-v1.diff Review of attachment 8379805 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I guess it's ok to make this change since it's better than the current state, but I would vastly prefer removing the API call entirely. Having persistent object IDs would be a great thing, and enable all kinds of stuff (eg making heap diffs more reliable/useful/robust.) But we don't, and having JS_GetObjectId in JSAPI is an outright lie. File a followup bug to remove it?
Attachment #8379805 - Flags: review?(sphink) → review+
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/8f879284bd82 (In reply to Steve Fink [:sfink] from comment #11) > File a followup bug to remove it? I made this bug leave-open to do that work next. I wanted to land this fix first as a contingency because (1) I wasn't sure when Bobby was going to land WeakMapPtr (I've now lost this race) and (2) the caller of this function is a total disaster. If "fixing" this turns into a multi-week adventure, now at least it won't also be a transitive facepalm for GGC too.
Bobby removed JS_GetObjectId in bug 990290, so we're good here.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Duplicate of bug: 990290
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.