On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Brian Smith <bsm...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > Given the above, I'd like to propose the following long-term > > solutions: > > 1. Did we try escalating a support request to Microsoft regarding this > issue? I know it is kind of an odd thing, but it seems like if you are > insistent enough and/or pay enough money, Microsoft engineers from the > affected product will get assigned to help you with the problem [1]. Paid > support is how Microsoft compensates for being closed-source. I would not > be surprised if somebody with knowledge of the internals of the > linker/compiler + experience with dealing with other customers' PGO issues > could give us some very helpful advise. > No, we haven't done that. We probably should. > 2. AFAICT, we did not seriously investigate the possibility of splitting > things out of libxul more. So far we've tried cutting things off the top of > the dependency tree. Maybe now we need to try cutting things off the bottom > of the dependency tree. > Can you please give some examples? Let's remember the days before libxul. It's hard to always make sure that you're accessing things that are properly exported from the target library, deal with internal and external APIs, etc. > 3. What is the performance difference between Visual Studio 2012 PGO > builds and Visual Studio 2010 builds? IMO, before we decide whether to > disable PGO on Windows, we need to get good benchmark results for Visual > Studio **2012** PGO builds, to make sure we're not throwing away wins that > could come "just" solving this problem in a different way + upgrading the > compiler. > That's something that we should probably measure as well. Filed bug 837724 for that. Cheers, -- Ehsan <http://ehsanakhgari.org/> _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
