{"issue":{"state":"open","pull_request":{"diff_url":"https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/pull/748.diff","html_url":"https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/pull/748","patch_url":"https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/pull/748.patch"},"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1e79769843eb2b1146834c762ae5f3da?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"1e79769843eb2b1146834c762ae5f3da","url":"https://api.github.com/users/arturadib","login":"arturadib","id":741528},"milestone":null,"assignee":null,"labels":[],"updated_at":"2011-11-02T19:36:34Z","comments":2,"closed_at":null,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mozilla/pdf.js/issues/748","body":"I've noticed up to a ~10% speedup using cached for loops versus accessing `.length` on every loop. Not sure if there'll be a noticeable speedup for us, but I guess it's common practice to use that anyway.\r\n\r\nLet's see how long the bot takes... Our previous two runs (https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/pull/744#issuecomment-2605804 and https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/pull/743#issuecomment-2593467) took about `29.5 min`.\r\n","html_url":"https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/issues/748","number":748,"title":"For-loop cache","id":2125465,"created_at":"2011-11-02T19:36:23Z"},"action":"created","comment":{"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/566da92c81e5d7bb420c76a0bb966ac9?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"566da92c81e5d7bb420c76a0bb966ac9","url":"https://api.github.com/users/pdfjsbot","login":"pdfjsbot","id":1036361},"updated_at":"2011-11-02T19:36:34Z","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mozilla/pdf.js/issues/comments/2608362","body":"Processing command **test** by user _arturadib_. Queue size: 0\n\nLive script output is available (after queueing is done) at: http://184.73.87.52:8989/2608361.txt\n\n[bot:processed:2608361]","id":2608362,"created_at":"2011-11-02T19:36:34Z"}}