Re: C++ method definition comments

Ehsan Akhgari writes: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:58 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote: > >> I would much rather revert to: >> /*static*/ void >> Foo::Bar() >> >> The Foo::Bar is the most relevant part of that whole expression, which >> makes it nice to keep up against the start of the line. >> > > The

Re: C++ method definition comments

Ehsan Akhgari writes: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:27 PM Ryan Hunt wrote: > >> [...] >> >> So for converting from C-style to C++-style, that would be: >> >> /* static */ void Foo::Bar() { >> ... >> } >> >> // static >> void Foo::Bar() { >> ... >> } >> >> [...] >> >> My one concern would be the

Re: PSA: 64-bits Windows build are now the default on 64-bits Windows

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 07:59:29AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > As of bug 1522354, now on autoland, hopefully merged in a few hours, > the default build you get on a 64-bits Windows machine will be 64-bits, > instead of 32-bits like it had been forever. > > If you do wish to do a 32-bits

Re: C++ method definition comments

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:57:02 AM UTC+11, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:10 PM wrote: > > > Just a thought: Would it be worth considering a blank macro, e.g.: > > static void foo(); > > DECLARED_STATIC void foo() {...} > > > > On top of not being confused with other

Re: C++ method definition comments

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:10 PM wrote: > Just a thought: Would it be worth considering a blank macro, e.g.: > static void foo(); > DECLARED_STATIC void foo() {...} > > On top of not being confused with other comments around, it could be > clang-checked so it's never wrong. (And maybe eventually

Re: C++ method definition comments

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:58 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote: > I would much rather revert to: > /*static*/ void > Foo::Bar() > > The Foo::Bar is the most relevant part of that whole expression, which > makes it nice to keep up against the start of the line. > The clang-format option which allows

Re: C++ method definition comments

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:27 PM Ryan Hunt wrote: > Yeah, personally I have found them be useful and don't have an issue with > keeping > them. I just wasn't sure if that was a common experience. > > So for converting from C-style to C++-style, that would be: > > /* static */ void Foo::Bar() { >

Re: Process Priority Manager enabled on Nightly for Windows (only)

Hi itielandrh, Is tab warming taken into account, so that when hovering a background tab, > its process priority will go back to normal? > Yes, this was addressed in this bug by dthayer. Love seeing your work Mike! > I'm glad this excites

Re: Process Priority Manager enabled on Nightly for Windows (only)

I was looking forward to this, thanks! Is tab warming taken into account, so that when hovering a background tab, its process priority will go back to normal? Love seeing your work Mike! בתאריך יום שלישי, 29 בינואר 2019 בשעה 20:33:41 UTC+2, מאת Mike Conley: > (cross-posted to dev-platform and

Re: Process Priority Manager enabled on Nightly for Windows (only)

Hey Yoric, Do we have any idea whether this has an impact on energy use? > I think it's plausible, but I don't think we have a super great way to measure that out in automation or with Telemetry (we might be able to use things like the Intel Power Gadget to measure locally). The original

Process Priority Manager enabled on Nightly for Windows (only)

(cross-posted to dev-platform and firefox-dev) Hi folks, Just a heads up that in bug 1476981 , I just autolanded a patch that, when hopefully merged, will enable the Process Priority Manager for Firefox Desktop on Nightly on Windows. The

Re: Does mozilla allow modification of Strings

On 1/29/19 4:37 AM, Nanday Dan wrote: I added the variable to FakeString. But still application crashes. Sure, unless you also fixed the Rust interop issue. -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Does mozilla allow modification of Strings

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:22:08 AM UTC+5:30, Kris Maglione wrote: > >Is it possible to add an extra variable to mozilla string(nsTStringRepr). > > > > > >I added a bool variable to nsTStringRepr class in Xpcom/Strings/ > > As something of a side note, the general way to do this is to

Re: Does mozilla allow modification of Strings

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9:09:05 PM UTC+5:30, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 1/28/19 10:30 AM, Nanday Dan wrote: > > Sorry, I forgot to mention that I commented those lines too. > > If you comment those lines, you will likely end up with code reading > random values for your boolean at best and