Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Mike Hommey]

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 07:38:31PM -0700, Emanuel Hoogeveen wrote:
> SSE2 is also required for IonMonkey, our optimizing JIT. The baseline
> compiler does work without SSE2, but isn't nearly as fast. So users
> running Firefox on hardware without SSE2 support are already getting
> severely degraded performance.

Heh, more importantly than the lack of SSE2, the very fact that those
are old processors makes them have degraded performance in the first
place. So, in fact, the lack of SSE2 is the least of their problem.

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Emanuel Hoogeveen]

SSE2 is also required for IonMonkey, our optimizing JIT. The baseline compiler 
does work without SSE2, but isn't nearly as fast. So users running Firefox on 
hardware without SSE2 support are already getting severely degraded performance.

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 10:59:01 PM UTC+2, Milan Sreckovic wrote:
> For graphics, it's performance if we start requiring SSE2.  Lately, 
> canvasmark benchmark, and increasingly more trouble when updating Skia 
> library.
> --
> - Milan
> 
> 
> 
> > On May 6, 2016, at 14:39 , Henri Sivonen  wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago
> >>> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really
> >>> doesn't matter now.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Wait - are we talking about requiring SSE or SSE2? The thread up to this
> >> point was talking about requiring just SSE, not SSE2. I just want to make
> >> sure we're on the same page since according to mhoye's post the non-SSE2
> >> population is ~25x larger than the non-SSE population...
> > 
> > What does requiring SSE without requiring SSE2 buy us apart from
> > VS2015 compat? Is it enough to fully avoid x87-style non-IEEE floating
> > point math? (SSE2 is usually cited when talking about migrating from
> > x87 to IEEE.)
> > 
> > It seems that requiring SSE2 is the typical discontinuity point as
> > seen in Windows itself, Chromium, Rust, various codec optimizations,
> > C++ compiler defaults (MSVC and, I believe, clang), etc.
> > 
> > That is to say, I hope the outcome here is that we start requiring SSE2.
> > 
> > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Milan Sreckovic  
> > wrote:
> >> While I agree we should drop non-SSE (and have started a conversation to 
> >> drop non-SSE2 as well :), the comparison to dropping 10.6-10.8 users is 
> >> somewhat unfair.  Those users can upgrade 10.9 easier than the non-SSE 
> >> users can buy a new computer.
> > 
> > Upgrading from Mac OS X 10.6 can be more expensive than buying a new
> > entry-level Windows PC if what kept you on 10.6 was expensive PPC-era
> > proprietary software (e.g. PPC-era Creative Suite for casual enough
> > use that you don't need the latest for the features). Also, some Macs
> > can't upgrade beyond 10.7. So the comparison is fairer than it first
> > may seem.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Henri Sivonen
> > hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
> > https://hsivonen.fi/
> > ___
> > dev-platform mailing list
> > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Milan Sreckovic]

For graphics, it’s performance if we start requiring SSE2.  Lately, canvasmark 
benchmark, and increasingly more trouble when updating Skia library.
—
- Milan



> On May 6, 2016, at 14:39 , Henri Sivonen  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago
>>> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really
>>> doesn't matter now.
>>> 
>> 
>> Wait - are we talking about requiring SSE or SSE2? The thread up to this
>> point was talking about requiring just SSE, not SSE2. I just want to make
>> sure we're on the same page since according to mhoye's post the non-SSE2
>> population is ~25x larger than the non-SSE population...
> 
> What does requiring SSE without requiring SSE2 buy us apart from
> VS2015 compat? Is it enough to fully avoid x87-style non-IEEE floating
> point math? (SSE2 is usually cited when talking about migrating from
> x87 to IEEE.)
> 
> It seems that requiring SSE2 is the typical discontinuity point as
> seen in Windows itself, Chromium, Rust, various codec optimizations,
> C++ compiler defaults (MSVC and, I believe, clang), etc.
> 
> That is to say, I hope the outcome here is that we start requiring SSE2.
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Milan Sreckovic  
> wrote:
>> While I agree we should drop non-SSE (and have started a conversation to 
>> drop non-SSE2 as well :), the comparison to dropping 10.6-10.8 users is 
>> somewhat unfair.  Those users can upgrade 10.9 easier than the non-SSE users 
>> can buy a new computer.
> 
> Upgrading from Mac OS X 10.6 can be more expensive than buying a new
> entry-level Windows PC if what kept you on 10.6 was expensive PPC-era
> proprietary software (e.g. PPC-era Creative Suite for casual enough
> use that you don't need the latest for the features). Also, some Macs
> can't upgrade beyond 10.7. So the comparison is fairer than it first
> may seem.
> 
> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
> https://hsivonen.fi/
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Henri Sivonen]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago
>> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really
>> doesn't matter now.
>>
>
> Wait - are we talking about requiring SSE or SSE2? The thread up to this
> point was talking about requiring just SSE, not SSE2. I just want to make
> sure we're on the same page since according to mhoye's post the non-SSE2
> population is ~25x larger than the non-SSE population...

What does requiring SSE without requiring SSE2 buy us apart from
VS2015 compat? Is it enough to fully avoid x87-style non-IEEE floating
point math? (SSE2 is usually cited when talking about migrating from
x87 to IEEE.)

It seems that requiring SSE2 is the typical discontinuity point as
seen in Windows itself, Chromium, Rust, various codec optimizations,
C++ compiler defaults (MSVC and, I believe, clang), etc.

That is to say, I hope the outcome here is that we start requiring SSE2.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Milan Sreckovic  wrote:
> While I agree we should drop non-SSE (and have started a conversation to drop 
> non-SSE2 as well :), the comparison to dropping 10.6-10.8 users is somewhat 
> unfair.  Those users can upgrade 10.9 easier than the non-SSE users can buy a 
> new computer.

Upgrading from Mac OS X 10.6 can be more expensive than buying a new
entry-level Windows PC if what kept you on 10.6 was expensive PPC-era
proprietary software (e.g. PPC-era Creative Suite for casual enough
use that you don't need the latest for the features). Also, some Macs
can't upgrade beyond 10.7. So the comparison is fairer than it first
may seem.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Milan Sreckovic]

While I agree we should drop non-SSE (and have started a conversation to drop 
non-SSE2 as well :), the comparison to dropping 10.6-10.8 users is somewhat 
unfair.  Those users can upgrade 10.9 easier than the non-SSE users can buy a 
new computer.
—
- Milan



> On May 6, 2016, at 12:22 , Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hoye  > wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>> 
>>> FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
>>> instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction
>>> set,
>>> which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later
>>> by
>>> AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still
>>> need
>>> Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
>>> 
>> Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not
>> support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). A
>> third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 XP,
>> etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.
>> 
> 
> This population (0.015%) is ~100x smaller than the OS X 10.6-10.8 users we
> just decided to drop (going by bsmedberg's quote of 1.2% in the OS X
> deprecation thread). Looking at the numbers alone, I can't see how we
> wouldn't arrive at the conclusion to require SSE. Beyond the numbers, the
> modern web must be a horrible experience on ancient processors and machines
> not supporting SSE. I'm not sure what value continuing to provide Firefox
> updates to this population will add.
> 
> Reverting to VS2013 will have an unplanned negative impact on developers
> and automation. Reverting to VS2013 then deciding a short time after that
> we can use VS2015/SSE after all will have even more negative impact. It is
> desirable to avoid both these things. Therefore *I'm going to not move
> forward with reverting aurora and central to VS2013 unless someone says
> otherwise*. I have cancelled the aurora uplift requests in bug 1270664
> until a decision is made.
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org 
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform 
> 
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Milan Sreckovic]

If it matters for this discussion, I’m pretty sure central doesn’t build with 
VS2013 today.  At least it doesn’t for me.
—
- Milan



> On May 6, 2016, at 13:17 , Gregory Szorc  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago
>> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really
>> doesn't matter now.
>> 
> 
> Wait - are we talking about requiring SSE or SSE2? The thread up to this
> point was talking about requiring just SSE, not SSE2. I just want to make
> sure we're on the same page since according to mhoye's post the non-SSE2
> population is ~25x larger than the non-SSE population...
> 
> 
>> 
>> We do need to avoid updating these users to a build that will crash, and
>> do the same "unsupported" messaging we're doing for old versions of MacOS.
>> Gregory, will you own that? You will probably need to add CPU feature
>> detection to the update URL/params for 47, or use some kind of system addon
>> to shunt these users off the main update path.
>> 
> 
> Given that 47 is in Beta, is it too late/risky to make this change on that
> channel? Should we revert to VS2013 on Aurora/48 and make the updater
> modifications on that channel? I think this will have minimal negative
> impact, as most of the impact to changing toolchains would be on central,
> as that is where most developers and automation live.
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Mike Hoye  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>> 
 FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
 instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction
 set,
 which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later
 by
 AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still
 need
 Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
 
>>> Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not
>>> support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). A
>>> third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 XP,
>>> etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.
>>> 
>>> - mhoye
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 09:59  So, to put it clearly and precisely, of the Firefox
>>> Population in release and beta who are reporting at least base telemetry
>>> collection on machines running supported configurations, only 0.01% cannot
>>> definitively say they have SSE.
>>> 10:00  (according to a 1% random sample as stored in the
>>> longitudinal dataset)
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> dev-platform mailing list
>>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: DOMTokenList.prototype.supports

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 5/4/16 9:36 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

Actually, that would technically be a spec violation for the moment,
since HTML does define this link type and doesn't list it in the
possible supported types list.


I landed this without "search" in the list for the moment, pending the 
outcome of the spec issue at https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/1184


-Boris

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Gregory Szorc]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg 
wrote:

> I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago
> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really
> doesn't matter now.
>

Wait - are we talking about requiring SSE or SSE2? The thread up to this
point was talking about requiring just SSE, not SSE2. I just want to make
sure we're on the same page since according to mhoye's post the non-SSE2
population is ~25x larger than the non-SSE population...


>
> We do need to avoid updating these users to a build that will crash, and
> do the same "unsupported" messaging we're doing for old versions of MacOS.
> Gregory, will you own that? You will probably need to add CPU feature
> detection to the update URL/params for 47, or use some kind of system addon
> to shunt these users off the main update path.
>

Given that 47 is in Beta, is it too late/risky to make this change on that
channel? Should we revert to VS2013 on Aurora/48 and make the updater
modifications on that channel? I think this will have minimal negative
impact, as most of the impact to changing toolchains would be on central,
as that is where most developers and automation live.


>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Mike Hoye  wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
>>> instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction
>>> set,
>>> which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later
>>> by
>>> AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still
>>> need
>>> Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
>>>
>> Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not
>> support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). A
>> third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 XP,
>> etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.
>>
>> - mhoye
>>
>>
>> 09:59  So, to put it clearly and precisely, of the Firefox
>> Population in release and beta who are reporting at least base telemetry
>> collection on machines running supported configurations, only 0.01% cannot
>> definitively say they have SSE.
>> 10:00  (according to a 1% random sample as stored in the
>> longitudinal dataset)
>>
>> ___
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>
>
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Benjamin Smedberg]

I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago
(see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really
doesn't matter now.

We do need to avoid updating these users to a build that will crash, and do
the same "unsupported" messaging we're doing for old versions of MacOS.
Gregory, will you own that? You will probably need to add CPU feature
detection to the update URL/params for 47, or use some kind of system addon
to shunt these users off the main update path.

--BDS


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Mike Hoye  wrote:

> On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
>> instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction
>> set,
>> which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later
>> by
>> AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still
>> need
>> Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
>>
> Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not
> support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). A
> third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 XP,
> etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.
>
> - mhoye
>
>
> 09:59  So, to put it clearly and precisely, of the Firefox
> Population in release and beta who are reporting at least base telemetry
> collection on machines running supported configurations, only 0.01% cannot
> definitively say they have SSE.
> 10:00  (according to a 1% random sample as stored in the
> longitudinal dataset)
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Gregory Szorc]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hoye  wrote:

> On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
>> instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction
>> set,
>> which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later
>> by
>> AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still
>> need
>> Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
>>
> Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not
> support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). A
> third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 XP,
> etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.
>

This population (0.015%) is ~100x smaller than the OS X 10.6-10.8 users we
just decided to drop (going by bsmedberg's quote of 1.2% in the OS X
deprecation thread). Looking at the numbers alone, I can't see how we
wouldn't arrive at the conclusion to require SSE. Beyond the numbers, the
modern web must be a horrible experience on ancient processors and machines
not supporting SSE. I'm not sure what value continuing to provide Firefox
updates to this population will add.

Reverting to VS2013 will have an unplanned negative impact on developers
and automation. Reverting to VS2013 then deciding a short time after that
we can use VS2015/SSE after all will have even more negative impact. It is
desirable to avoid both these things. Therefore *I'm going to not move
forward with reverting aurora and central to VS2013 unless someone says
otherwise*. I have cancelled the aurora uplift requests in bug 1270664
until a decision is made.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox sandbox flag

[Ben Kelly]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky  wrote:

> Support in other browsers: I believe Chrome supports this.  I'm not sure
> what the state is in other browsers.
>

Looks like chrome 46:

https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5708368589094912

I'm happy to see this implemented since I've had web developers ask about
it in the past.  I think anything we can do to get more ads running in
sandboxed iframes is a good thing.

Thanks!

Ben
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

[Eric Shepherd]

That's what I figured, but the articles about it didn't seem to say, and
the late hour caused me not to think to look at the spec itself. Good deal.


> That's a no-op per https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-event-preventdefault.

-- 

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla Developer Network 
Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
Doodle: http://doodle.com/the.sheppy

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Kyle Huey]

I think we should strongly consider just requiring SSE at this point.

- Kyle

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hoye  wrote:

> On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
>> instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction
>> set,
>> which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later
>> by
>> AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still
>> need
>> Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
>>
> Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not
> support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). A
> third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 XP,
> etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.
>
> - mhoye
>
>
> 09:59  So, to put it clearly and precisely, of the Firefox
> Population in release and beta who are reporting at least base telemetry
> collection on machines running supported configurations, only 0.01% cannot
> definitively say they have SSE.
> 10:00  (according to a 1% random sample as stored in the
> longitudinal dataset)
>
> ___
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement and ship: "passive" option for AddEventListenerOptions

[Kartikaya Gupta]

Correct, the preventDefault() is ignored from a passive listener, and
we will probably log a warning to the console (I have a patch up for
review that does that, let's see what smaug says).

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren  wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Eric Shepherd  wrote:
>> What happens if the developer specifies passive yet calls
>> preventDefault() anyway?
>
> That's a no-op per https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-event-preventdefault.
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Mike Hoye]

On 2016-05-06 12:26 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:

FWIW, the crashes we've seen so far are from incorrectly emitted movss
instructions. This instruction is part of the original SSE instruction set,
which was initially unveiled by Intel on the Pentium 3 in 1999 and later by
AMD on the Duron and Athlon XP in 2000-2001. I'm not sure why we still need
Firefox to run on processors manufactured in the 90s.
Per an IRC conversation with chutten, Firefox users on CPUs that do not 
support SSE are 0.015% of our user base. (compared to 0.4% for no-SSE2). 
A third of those are on otherwise-unsupported configurations (pre-SP3 
XP, etc), this work provides continuity of support to 0.01% of our users.


- mhoye


09:59  So, to put it clearly and precisely, of the Firefox 
Population in release and beta who are reporting at least base telemetry 
collection on machines running supported configurations, only 0.01% 
cannot definitively say they have SSE.
10:00  (according to a 1% random sample as stored in the 
longitudinal dataset)

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

[Xidorn Quan]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Mike Hommey  wrote:

> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> >
> > It's Firefox 48, three versions after ESR 45, which is roughly halfway
> > before the next ESR.
>
> 48 is the first version that will *not* have 10.6-10.8 support.


On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ralph Giles  wrote:
> The blog post just says "August 2016". Firefox 48 is scheduled for
> release August 2. Can you confirm that means we can start removing
> 10.6-10.8 support in mozilla-central now, which will be Firefox 49?

This post reads to me that we start dropping 10.6~10.8 since Firefox 49, so
Firefox 48 should be the last one with that support. Am I missing something
here?

- Xidorn
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Mike Hommey]

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:25:54AM -0700, Chris Peterson wrote:
> On 5/5/16 9:26 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> > I'll try to stand up automation to ensure central remains buildable with
> > VS2015. This will add extra work and strain on automation and likely make
> > writing C++ that remains compatible with multiple Visual Studio versions
> > slightly harder. This is unfortunate, but I think necessary since people
> > will want to use VS2015 for development.
> 
> Can we continue to build Windows x64 with VS2015? That would ensure code is
> still buildable with VS2015, take advantage of newer optimizations and
> warnings, and have little (?) infrastructure overhead compared to using
> VS2013.

That's a good point, and there's no concern about SSE on 64-bits, since
SSE and SSE2 are part of the base x86-64 instruction set.

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

[Mike Hommey]

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:01:12PM +1000, Xidorn Quan wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Chris Peterson 
> wrote:
> 
> > On 5/5/16 8:23 PM, sfbay.mapfi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The best option, from my perspective (supporting a wide array of users,
> >> OS versions, hardware), is to make the final 10.6-10.8 version be (or
> >> become) the next ESR with a startup page providing them with the choice and
> >> action buttons/links.
> >>
> >
> > Making the upcoming final 10.6–10.8 release (Firefox 47?) an ESR is an
> > interesting idea. It's a unfortunate that ESR 45 was just released.
> > Enterprises may already be deploying ESR 45 and not want to test and deploy
> > another ESR so soon.
> >
> 
> It's Firefox 48, three versions after ESR 45, which is roughly halfway
> before the next ESR.

48 is the first version that will *not* have 10.6-10.8 support.

Mike
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

[Xidorn Quan]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Chris Peterson 
wrote:

> On 5/5/16 8:23 PM, sfbay.mapfi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The best option, from my perspective (supporting a wide array of users,
>> OS versions, hardware), is to make the final 10.6-10.8 version be (or
>> become) the next ESR with a startup page providing them with the choice and
>> action buttons/links.
>>
>
> Making the upcoming final 10.6–10.8 release (Firefox 47?) an ESR is an
> interesting idea. It's a unfortunate that ESR 45 was just released.
> Enterprises may already be deploying ESR 45 and not want to test and deploy
> another ESR so soon.
>

It's Firefox 48, three versions after ESR 45, which is roughly halfway
before the next ESR.

Could we probably make Firefox 48 a half-ESR, whose support term is
extended to the end of ESR 45, so that people don't need to downgrade to
ESR 45 to get security updates for the rest of the time, and enterprises
don't need to deploy this version if they do not have many affected
machines.

- Xidorn
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to deprecate: MacOS 10.6-10.8 support

[Chris Peterson]

On 5/5/16 8:23 PM, sfbay.mapfi...@gmail.com wrote:

The best option, from my perspective (supporting a wide array of users, OS 
versions, hardware), is to make the final 10.6-10.8 version be (or become) the 
next ESR with a startup page providing them with the choice and action 
buttons/links.


Making the upcoming final 10.6–10.8 release (Firefox 47?) an ESR is an 
interesting idea. It's a unfortunate that ESR 45 was just released. 
Enterprises may already be deploying ESR 45 and not want to test and 
deploy another ESR so soon.

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Reverting to VS2013 on central and aurora

[Chris Peterson]

On 5/5/16 9:26 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:

I'll try to stand up automation to ensure central remains buildable with
VS2015. This will add extra work and strain on automation and likely make
writing C++ that remains compatible with multiple Visual Studio versions
slightly harder. This is unfortunate, but I think necessary since people
will want to use VS2015 for development.


Can we continue to build Windows x64 with VS2015? That would ensure code 
is still buildable with VS2015, take advantage of newer optimizations 
and warnings, and have little (?) infrastructure overhead compared to 
using VS2013.

___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform