Benchmark: Arguments leaking - IE version

Script Preparation code:

var leakyArguments = function () {
  return other(arguments)
}
var nonLeakyArguments = function  (args) {
  return other(args)
}
var copyArgs = function  () {
  var array = new Array(arguments.length)

  for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
    array[i] = arguments[i]
  }

  return other(array)
}

var sliceArguments = function () {
  var array = Array.prototype.slice.apply(arguments)
  return other(array)
}

var other = function (toSum) {
  var total = 0
  for (var i = 0; i < toSum.length; i++) {
    total += toSum[i]
  }
  return total
}

Tests:

leakyArguments
leakyArguments(1, 2, 3)
Array.prototype.slice arguments
sliceArguments(1, 2, 3)
copyArgs
copyArgs(1, 2, 3)
nonLeaky
nonLeakyArguments([1, 2, 3])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
leakyArguments
Array.prototype.slice arguments
copyArgs
nonLeaky

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is based on a JavaScript function that calculates the sum of elements in an array. The functions are designed to demonstrate how different approaches can lead to "arguments leaking" or unexpected behavior, particularly in Internet Explorer versions.

The benchmark defines four main functions:

1. `leakyArguments`: This function returns another function that copies the arguments. However, instead of returning a new copy, it returns the original function itself.
2. `nonLeakyArguments`: This function takes an array as input and returns its sum. It does not create a copy of the array.
3. `copyArgs`: This function creates a copy of the arguments using `Array.prototype.slice.apply(arguments)`.
4. `sliceArguments`: Similar to `copyArgs`, but uses the `Array.prototype.slice` method directly.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different approaches:

1. `leakyArguments`: This approach can lead to unexpected behavior due to the recursive nature of the function.
2. `nonLeakyArguments`: This approach is safe and does not create a copy of the array, but it may be slower.
3. `copyArgs` and `sliceArguments`: These approaches create a copy of the arguments using different methods.

**Pros and Cons**

* `leakyArguments`:
	+ Pros: None
	+ Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior due to recursive function calls
* `nonLeakyArguments`:
	+ Pros: Safe, no memory leaks
	+ Cons: May be slower than other approaches
* `copyArgs` and `sliceArguments`:
	+ Pros: Creates a copy of the arguments, can help prevent unexpected behavior
	+ Cons: Can lead to increased memory usage if not implemented correctly

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. The benchmark is self-contained in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The `Array.prototype.slice` method and `Array.prototype.slice.apply` are used, but this is standard JavaScript syntax and does not require special explanation.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Memory usage: How much memory do the different approaches consume?
* Performance: Which approach is fastest, and why?
* Safety: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities in the benchmark?

In this case, the `nonLeakyArguments` approach is safe, but may be slower than other approaches. The `copyArgs` and `sliceArguments` approaches create a copy of the arguments, which can help prevent unexpected behavior.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing similar scenarios might include:

* Using a different JavaScript engine or version
* Testing with larger input sizes or more complex data structures
* Comparing performance using tools like WebPageTest or Benchmark.js

By considering these factors and alternatives, you can gain a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved in different approach to handling arguments in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
leakyArguments	103377976.0 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.slice arguments	4821634.0 Ops/sec
copyArgs	17963756.0 Ops/sec
nonLeaky	49349612.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Arguments leaking - IE version (version: 0)

taken from https://github.com/davidmarkclements/v8-perf/blob/master/bench/arguments.js

Comparing performance of: leakyArguments vs Array.prototype.slice arguments vs copyArgs vs nonLeaky

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

leakyArguments

Array.prototype.slice arguments

copyArgs

nonLeaky

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):