Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore
Thanks for the suggestions, Kenneth. I'm refining the code and trying to enable the last major component - the low level interpreter for x32. Yes it's ideal if we can upstream the code, and as you mentioned, keep maintaining it. The buildbot is a good idea while we are still way far from it - it requires a mature x32 system which at least supports all of the things that a WebKit port depends on. I know there're efforts porting Gentoo and Fedora to x32 - we may depend on each other. Currently I'm testing the JSC shell only. Though I use the EFL port, I eliminated most of the unnecessary dependencies on EFL libraries to run the JSC shell, so that I don't need to put efforts on compiling and enabling those dependencies for x32 at current stage. Thanks, -Yuqiang -Original Message- From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen [mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com] Sent: 2012年10月11日 5:51 To: Xian, Yuqiang Cc: webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore Hi, I don't think another branch on webkit.org will help you much; then you can as well have a branch anywhere. If you want this code to be well tested and maintained, you need to get it upstream (through all the review process) and promise that you have resources to keep maintaining it. It will also be an advantage if we can get a buildbot running this exact configuration, so that others can make sure they don't break your code. I think that whether the community will accept it upstream depends much about your commitment and the quality of the code, as well as how well you interact with the community during the reviews. Which port of WebKit is you currently using for testing? Cheers Kenneth On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Xian, Yuqiang yuqiang.x...@intel.com wrote: Hi, As you may already know there’s a new x32 ABI – a 32-bit psABI for x86-64 with 32-bit pointer size. It tries to leverage the advantage of more registers and IP relative addressing from x64 and the advantage of smaller memory footprint from IA32. You can find more details of the x32 ABI here: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/. The Linux kernel supports x32 since 3.4, and the commonly used development tools and libraries are getting in the x32 support. Also more details about current status is available in the above link. Now back to WebKit. In theory most part of the WebKit code should be fine (or require less efforts) to support x32, if they’re pure C++ code and can be compiled with the x32 toolchain. The major challenge is the JIT compiler in the JavaScript engine (and the low level interpreter) and some hand-written assembly code. So I’m currently working on enabling the x32 support of JavaScriptCore, the WebKit JavaScript engine, to try to remove the major obstacle. My current status is that I have enabled the baseline JIT, the DFG JIT and the Yarr JIT on x32 – it passes all the JavaScriptCore tests and the 3 major benchmarks. I’m posting this message in order to seek for some advices on how we should have our work shared to more people. I understand that it’s not very appropriate to try to get it into current WebKit trunk considering current x32 support status in major systems and the lack of maintenance in upstream, but we want to keep it synchronized with the newest changes of the WebKit code. So is it possible for us to maintain the code in a separate branch hosted at the WebKit server? Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, -Yuqiang ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer, WebKit, Qt, EFL Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit.org ﹆﹆﹆ ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore
Just out of curiosity, how much code modifications are required? I read the ABI documentation the link you attached, and x32 is a regular 64 bit mode, except it seems to me that the global descriptor table is tweaked to store the same descriptors for all 4G address spaces, so the upper 32 bit is basically ignored when you access a memory address. It is called Small Code Model or something. I suspect the changes in the JIT code are minimal. Regards, Zoltan Thanks for the suggestions, Kenneth. I'm refining the code and trying to enable the last major component - the low level interpreter for x32. Yes it's ideal if we can upstream the code, and as you mentioned, keep maintaining it. The buildbot is a good idea while we are still way far from it - it requires a mature x32 system which at least supports all of the things that a WebKit port depends on. I know there're efforts porting Gentoo and Fedora to x32 - we may depend on each other. Currently I'm testing the JSC shell only. Though I use the EFL port, I eliminated most of the unnecessary dependencies on EFL libraries to run the JSC shell, so that I don't need to put efforts on compiling and enabling those dependencies for x32 at current stage. Thanks, -Yuqiang -Original Message- From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen [mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com] Sent: 2012年10月11日 5:51 To: Xian, Yuqiang Cc: webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore Hi, I don't think another branch on webkit.org will help you much; then you can as well have a branch anywhere. If you want this code to be well tested and maintained, you need to get it upstream (through all the review process) and promise that you have resources to keep maintaining it. It will also be an advantage if we can get a buildbot running this exact configuration, so that others can make sure they don't break your code. I think that whether the community will accept it upstream depends much about your commitment and the quality of the code, as well as how well you interact with the community during the reviews. Which port of WebKit is you currently using for testing? Cheers Kenneth On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Xian, Yuqiang yuqiang.x...@intel.com wrote: Hi, As you may already know there’s a new x32 ABI – a 32-bit psABI for x86-64 with 32-bit pointer size. It tries to leverage the advantage of more registers and IP relative addressing from x64 and the advantage of smaller memory footprint from IA32. You can find more details of the x32 ABI here: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/. The Linux kernel supports x32 since 3.4, and the commonly used development tools and libraries are getting in the x32 support. Also more details about current status is available in the above link. Now back to WebKit. In theory most part of the WebKit code should be fine (or require less efforts) to support x32, if they’re pure C++ code and can be compiled with the x32 toolchain. The major challenge is the JIT compiler in the JavaScript engine (and the low level interpreter) and some hand-written assembly code. So I’m currently working on enabling the x32 support of JavaScriptCore, the WebKit JavaScript engine, to try to remove the major obstacle. My current status is that I have enabled the baseline JIT, the DFG JIT and the Yarr JIT on x32 – it passes all the JavaScriptCore tests and the 3 major benchmarks. I’m posting this message in order to seek for some advices on how we should have our work shared to more people. I understand that it’s not very appropriate to try to get it into current WebKit trunk considering current x32 support status in major systems and the lack of maintenance in upstream, but we want to keep it synchronized with the newest changes of the WebKit code. So is it possible for us to maintain the code in a separate branch hosted at the WebKit server? Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, -Yuqiang ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer, WebKit, Qt, EFL Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit.org ﹆﹆﹆ ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore
On X32, the size of a pointer or a long integer is 4 bytes instead of 8 bytes on X64, while the register size is still 8 bytes. In JavaScriptCore implementation for X64, it assumes that the JSValue size is same to the pointer size, and thus EncodedJSValue is simply type defined as a void*. In the JIT compiler, we also take this assumption and invoke the same macro assembler interface for both JSValue and pointer operands. So the primary task for x32 support is to differentiate the operations on pointers from the operations on JSValues, and let them invoking different macro assembler interfaces. For example, we now use the interface of loadPtr to load either a pointer or a JSValue, and we need to switch to using loadPtr to load a pointer and some new load64 interface to load a JSValue. The major modification I made is to introduce the *64 interfaces in the MacroAssembler, make the *Ptr interfaces platform dependent implemented (one for X32 and the other for X64), and go through all the JIT compiler code to identify which interfaces should be used. Also, the calling convention needs to be cared. For example on X64 you may need two registers to pass or return a structure with two pointer size members, while on X32 those two members are placed in one register. Thanks, -Yuqiang -Original Message- From: Zoltan Herczeg [mailto:zherc...@webkit.org] Sent: 2012年10月11日 15:43 To: Xian, Yuqiang Cc: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen; webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore Just out of curiosity, how much code modifications are required? I read the ABI documentation the link you attached, and x32 is a regular 64 bit mode, except it seems to me that the global descriptor table is tweaked to store the same descriptors for all 4G address spaces, so the upper 32 bit is basically ignored when you access a memory address. It is called Small Code Model or something. I suspect the changes in the JIT code are minimal. Regards, Zoltan Thanks for the suggestions, Kenneth. I'm refining the code and trying to enable the last major component - the low level interpreter for x32. Yes it's ideal if we can upstream the code, and as you mentioned, keep maintaining it. The buildbot is a good idea while we are still way far from it - it requires a mature x32 system which at least supports all of the things that a WebKit port depends on. I know there're efforts porting Gentoo and Fedora to x32 - we may depend on each other. Currently I'm testing the JSC shell only. Though I use the EFL port, I eliminated most of the unnecessary dependencies on EFL libraries to run the JSC shell, so that I don't need to put efforts on compiling and enabling those dependencies for x32 at current stage. Thanks, -Yuqiang -Original Message- From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen [mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com] Sent: 2012年10月11日 5:51 To: Xian, Yuqiang Cc: webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore Hi, I don't think another branch on webkit.org will help you much; then you can as well have a branch anywhere. If you want this code to be well tested and maintained, you need to get it upstream (through all the review process) and promise that you have resources to keep maintaining it. It will also be an advantage if we can get a buildbot running this exact configuration, so that others can make sure they don't break your code. I think that whether the community will accept it upstream depends much about your commitment and the quality of the code, as well as how well you interact with the community during the reviews. Which port of WebKit is you currently using for testing? Cheers Kenneth On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Xian, Yuqiang yuqiang.x...@intel.com wrote: Hi, As you may already know there’s a new x32 ABI – a 32-bit psABI for x86-64 with 32-bit pointer size. It tries to leverage the advantage of more registers and IP relative addressing from x64 and the advantage of smaller memory footprint from IA32. You can find more details of the x32 ABI here: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/. The Linux kernel supports x32 since 3.4, and the commonly used development tools and libraries are getting in the x32 support. Also more details about current status is available in the above link. Now back to WebKit. In theory most part of the WebKit code should be fine (or require less efforts) to support x32, if they’re pure C++ code and can be compiled with the x32 toolchain. The major challenge is the JIT compiler in the JavaScript engine (and the low level interpreter) and some hand-written assembly code. So I’m currently working on enabling the x32 support of JavaScriptCore, the WebKit JavaScript engine, to try to remove the major obstacle. My current status is that I have enabled the baseline JIT, the DFG JIT and the Yarr JIT on x32 – it passes all the JavaScriptCore
Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore
OK, I see. If most of your changes are in JavaScriptCore, it might be possible to just have a build bot that builds that and runs the unit tests for now, then later get all of WebKit tested. Kenneth On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Xian, Yuqiang yuqiang.x...@intel.com wrote: Thanks for the suggestions, Kenneth. I'm refining the code and trying to enable the last major component - the low level interpreter for x32. Yes it's ideal if we can upstream the code, and as you mentioned, keep maintaining it. The buildbot is a good idea while we are still way far from it - it requires a mature x32 system which at least supports all of the things that a WebKit port depends on. I know there're efforts porting Gentoo and Fedora to x32 - we may depend on each other. Currently I'm testing the JSC shell only. Though I use the EFL port, I eliminated most of the unnecessary dependencies on EFL libraries to run the JSC shell, so that I don't need to put efforts on compiling and enabling those dependencies for x32 at current stage. Thanks, -Yuqiang -Original Message- From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen [mailto:kenneth.christian...@gmail.com] Sent: 2012年10月11日 5:51 To: Xian, Yuqiang Cc: webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] x32 support of JavaScriptCore Hi, I don't think another branch on webkit.org will help you much; then you can as well have a branch anywhere. If you want this code to be well tested and maintained, you need to get it upstream (through all the review process) and promise that you have resources to keep maintaining it. It will also be an advantage if we can get a buildbot running this exact configuration, so that others can make sure they don't break your code. I think that whether the community will accept it upstream depends much about your commitment and the quality of the code, as well as how well you interact with the community during the reviews. Which port of WebKit is you currently using for testing? Cheers Kenneth On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Xian, Yuqiang yuqiang.x...@intel.com wrote: Hi, As you may already know there’s a new x32 ABI – a 32-bit psABI for x86-64 with 32-bit pointer size. It tries to leverage the advantage of more registers and IP relative addressing from x64 and the advantage of smaller memory footprint from IA32. You can find more details of the x32 ABI here: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/. The Linux kernel supports x32 since 3.4, and the commonly used development tools and libraries are getting in the x32 support. Also more details about current status is available in the above link. Now back to WebKit. In theory most part of the WebKit code should be fine (or require less efforts) to support x32, if they’re pure C++ code and can be compiled with the x32 toolchain. The major challenge is the JIT compiler in the JavaScript engine (and the low level interpreter) and some hand-written assembly code. So I’m currently working on enabling the x32 support of JavaScriptCore, the WebKit JavaScript engine, to try to remove the major obstacle. My current status is that I have enabled the baseline JIT, the DFG JIT and the Yarr JIT on x32 – it passes all the JavaScriptCore tests and the 3 major benchmarks. I’m posting this message in order to seek for some advices on how we should have our work shared to more people. I understand that it’s not very appropriate to try to get it into current WebKit trunk considering current x32 support status in major systems and the lack of maintenance in upstream, but we want to keep it synchronized with the newest changes of the WebKit code. So is it possible for us to maintain the code in a separate branch hosted at the WebKit server? Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, -Yuqiang ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer, WebKit, Qt, EFL Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit.org ﹆﹆﹆ -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer, WebKit, Qt, EFL Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit.org ﹆﹆﹆ ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] HbbTV support within Webkit
On 10/10/2012 10:26 AM, Mark Toller wrote: What we would like to see initially is Webkit based browsers (Chrome, Safari, Minibrowser, etc) actually load HbbTV pages instead of asking the user to download the content - this would indirectly benefit the end goal of Webkit (to get everyone to support standard W3C/HTML5)... This particular change is just a matter of adding one more displayable mime-type, right? Dominik -- Dominik Röttsches dominik.rottsc...@intel.com ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] HbbTV support within Webkit
-Original Message- From: Dominik Röttsches [mailto:dominik.rottsc...@intel.com] On 10/10/2012 10:26 AM, Mark Toller wrote: What we would like to see initially is Webkit based browsers (Chrome, Safari, Minibrowser, etc) actually load HbbTV pages instead of asking the user to download the content - this would indirectly benefit the end goal of Webkit (to get everyone to support standard W3C/HTML5)... This particular change is just a matter of adding one more displayable mime-type, right? Almost. I've created a bug and patch for this particular change: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99049 As someone else stated, I think the best approach is to create a bug for each change we consider worthwhile, and then they can be considered individually. Regards, Mark. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] Interface design question
Hello,
Have a design related question and hope to hear some insights.
Interfaces using abstract classes impose restriction(s) on it's derived
implementations.
- The most widely used restriction is to IMPLEMENT Function(s)
Question:
Is it permissible to have similar kind of restriction for any data
members in the interface?
In a way that if some one wants to implement the interface it also must
initialize certain variable.
Ex:
Say for a TCP/IP it absolutely necessary to have
peer's IP address and Port number.
So, is wise to impose a restriction to pass above variable to
initialize the class.
class IP4Connection
{
public:
explicit IP4Connection( string ip, uint port);
virtual int send() = 0;
virtual int listen() = 0;
virtual int reconnect() = 0;
protected:
std::string ip;
uint port;
};
Thanks,
Siva.___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Interface design question
webkit-dev doesn't seem like an appropriate place to discuss this topic
unless you have a specific WebKit patch or bug that relates this design
question.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Siva B bvs.s...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
Have a design related question and hope to hear some insights.
Interfaces using abstract classes impose restriction(s) on it's
derived implementations.
- The most widely used restriction is to IMPLEMENT Function(s)
Question:
Is it permissible to have similar kind of restriction for any
data members in the interface?
In a way that if some one wants to implement the interface it also
must initialize certain variable.
Ex:
Say for a TCP/IP it absolutely necessary to have peer's IP address
and Port number.
So, is wise to impose a restriction to pass above variable to
initialize the class.
class IP4Connection
{
public:
explicit IP4Connection( string ip, uint port);
virtual int send() = 0;
virtual int listen() = 0;
virtual int reconnect() = 0;
protected:
std::string ip;
uint port;
};
Thanks,
Siva.
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Interface design question
I'am Sorry.
Siva.
From: Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org
To: Siva B bvs.s...@yahoo.com
Cc: webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Interface design question
webkit-dev doesn't seem like an appropriate place to discuss this topic unless
you have a specific WebKit patch or bug that relates this design question.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Siva B bvs.s...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
Have a design related question and hope to hear some insights.
Interfaces using abstract classes impose restriction(s) on it's derived
implementations.
- The most widely used restriction is to IMPLEMENT Function(s)
Question:
Is it permissible to have similar kind of restriction for any data
members in the interface?
In a way that if some one wants to implement the interface it also
must initialize certain variable.
Ex:
Say for a TCP/IP it absolutely necessary to have
peer's IP address and Port number.
So, is wise to impose a restriction to pass above variable to
initialize the class.
class IP4Connection
{
public:
explicit IP4Connection( string ip, uint port);
virtual int send() = 0;
virtual int listen() = 0;
virtual int reconnect() = 0;
protected:
std::string ip;
uint port;
};
Thanks,
Siva.
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Unprefixing requestAnimationFrame
From early on, requestAnimationFrame articles and documentation recommended shims/polyfills alongside the prose. Because of this nearly every script library using rAF detects all prefixes and the unprefixed standard version. More than nearly any other prefixed API I can think of, shipping unprefixed rAF without the prefixed alias should be safe. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM, James Simonsen simon...@chromium.orgwrote: I've posted a patch to remove the webkit prefix from requestAnimationFrame. [1] The question is whether or not to continue to support the prefixed version. I propose dropping it for the following reasons: 1. We're changing the callback semantics to match the spec. [2] 2. IE10 is shipping with this unprefixed. [3] 3. Toolkits already use the unprefixed version. [4] 4. The advice on the internet recommends everyone use the polyfill technique. [5] I'm curious what everyone else thinks. James [1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116 [2] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66683 [3] http://caniuse.com/#feat=requestanimationframe [4] https://gist.github.com/1579671 [5] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.requestAnimationFrame ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Unprefixing requestAnimationFrame
I agree with what Adam wrote in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116#c5. Even if a lot of sites will magically failover to the unprefixed API, we can't know for sure that this change won't break sites. We need to give them a chance to update. (I don't know if one Chrome release cycle will be enough.) Why not be conservative here? -Darin On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM, James Simonsen simon...@chromium.orgwrote: I've posted a patch to remove the webkit prefix from requestAnimationFrame. [1] The question is whether or not to continue to support the prefixed version. I propose dropping it for the following reasons: 1. We're changing the callback semantics to match the spec. [2] 2. IE10 is shipping with this unprefixed. [3] 3. Toolkits already use the unprefixed version. [4] 4. The advice on the internet recommends everyone use the polyfill technique. [5] I'm curious what everyone else thinks. James [1] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99116 [2] https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66683 [3] http://caniuse.com/#feat=requestanimationframe [4] https://gist.github.com/1579671 [5] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.requestAnimationFrame ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
