Awhile back slices switched to being raw views into wasm memory, but this
doens't work if we free the underlying memory unconditionally! Moving around a
`Vec` is already moving a lot of data, so let's copy it onto the JS heap instead
of leaving it in the wasm heap.
When adding support for mutable slices I was under the impression that if the
wasm memory was reallocated while we were using it then we'd have to commit the
changes from the original buffer back to the new buffer. What I didn't know,
however, is that once the wasm memory is reallocated then all views into it are
supposed to be defunkt.
It looks like node 9 didn't have this implementation quite right and it appears
fixed in node 10, causing the deleted test here to fail. While this commit does
raise the question of whether this is the right approach to interact with slices
in JS I think the answer is still "yes". The user can always initiate the copy
if need be and that seems strictly better than copying 100% of the time.
This commit adds support for mutable slices to pass the boundary between JS and
Rust. While mutable slices cannot be used as return values they can be listed as
arguments to both exported functions as well as imported functions.
When passing a mutable slice into a Rust function (aka having it as an argument
to an exported Rust function) then like before with a normal slice it's copied
into the wasm memory. Afterwards, however, the updates in the wasm memory will
be reflected back into the original slice. This does require a lot of copying
and probably isn't the most efficient, but it should at least work for the time
being.
The real nifty part happens when Rust passes a mutable slice out to JS. When
doing this it's a very cheap operation that just gets a subarray of the main
wasm memory. Now the wasm memory's buffer can change over time which can produce
surprising results where memory is modified in JS but it may not be reflected
back into Rust. To accomodate this when a JS imported function returns any
updates to the buffer are copied back to Rust if Rust's memory buffer has
changed in the meantime.
Along the way this fixes usage of `slice` to instead use `subarray` as that's
what we really want, no copying. All methods have been updated to use `subarray`
accessors instead of `slice` or constructing new arrays.
Closes#53
Nowadays the compile times are mitigated with incremental compilation and
otherwise it's much more ergonomic to run only one test if they're all in the
same suite.
