[library_sockfs.js] Cleanup buffer handling in sendmsg #22987
Merged
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
sbc100
force-pushed
the
sockfs_buffer_handling
branch
from
c7f0ade to
0d57262
Compare
kripken
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2024
kripken
reviewed
Nov 21, 2024
| } else { | ||
| #endif | ||
| data = buffer.slice(offset, offset + length); | ||
| var data = buffer.slice(offset, offset + length); | ||
| #if PTHREADS |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Separately, should this be #if SHARED_MEMORY so it works with WASM_WORKERS?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed... maybe a followup?
sbc100
force-pushed
the
sockfs_buffer_handling
branch
from
0d57262 to
1986d7d
Compare
Extracting the `buffer.slice` expression made the code cleanup and showed the double `new Uint8Array` to be redundant (AFAICT).
sbc100
force-pushed
the
sockfs_buffer_handling
branch
from
1986d7d to
ec8e26e
Compare
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
In emscripten-core#22987 I added a new veriant of the test_nodejs_sockets_echo test and chose the next consecutive port number, but it seems that each test ends up using two ports numbers so this could conflicted with the tests that were using both the previous and next number in the sequence (59164 and 59166).
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
In #22987 I added a new veriant of the test_nodejs_sockets_echo test and chose the next consecutive port number, but it seems that each test ends up using two ports numbers so this could conflicted with the tests that were using both the previous and next number in the sequence (59164 and 59166).
sbc100
added a commit
to sbc100/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2024
In emscripten-core#22987 I added a new veriant of the test_nodejs_sockets_echo test and chose the next consecutive port number, but it seems that each test ends up using two ports numbers so this could conflicted with the tests that were using both the previous and next number in the sequence (59164 and 59166).
hedwigz
pushed a commit
to hedwigz/emscripten
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2024
In emscripten-core#22987 I added a new veriant of the test_nodejs_sockets_echo test and chose the next consecutive port number, but it seems that each test ends up using two ports numbers so this could conflicted with the tests that were using both the previous and next number in the sequence (59164 and 59166).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
No description provided.