This is a heads up, and a call for feedback:
Barring a really compelling reason to the contrary, we're going to go ahead
and make SCons the official build system on Windows next week.
A key goal here is to get out of the current holding pattern. Trying to
keep the SCons build-on-the-side current
I wish I knew COM programming. At this point, I'm still starting to
learn MFC.
On Nov 14, 1:44 am, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good-ish to me. Go forth and code a demo...?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marshall Greenblatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be nice to leverage chromium's multi-process
architecture
in a COM context. The chromium browser process would be hosted in
a local COM server executable.
(Whoops, gmail loves sending things to chromium-dev no matter what i choose)
After Pam's re-factoring of the expectation files (thank you Pam!!!),
here's the current output:
= Tests we want to pass (8432):
7020 test cases (83.3%) Passed
223 test cases (2.6%) Skipped
1124 test cases (13.3%)
I just found this Chromium rendering engine called Awesomium.
Daniel A. White
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Marshall Greenblatt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Amanda,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Amanda Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
It depends a little on what you want to do. Do
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Daniel A. White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I just found this Chromium rendering engine called Awesomium.
Daniel A. White
Alas, Awesomium does not support the value-added browser-like capabilities
that we would want in our ActiveX control. What will
Thanks, Steven for taking care of this so transparently so far!
Its hard to comment on, because I'm not sure if I'm yet seeing what it means
to build via scons from within VS. Is there a branch where I can test out
the new build system before it goes live?
mike
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:12 AM,
Let me know if you have specific issues or concerns to address, or
(especially) if you know of any reason next week would be a bad time to do
this.
I understand it might not be on-par just yet, but so we know what to
expect, are there comparison numbers for total post-checkout
I agree. I'm afraid that if building takes xx% more time, engs will
complain (heck they already complain, I do too).
I don't want to loose the choice to build a single project and its
dependencies, like just build unit_tests.exe or chrome.exe. I very
infrequently build the whole solution. I let
I was an early adopter, and I am all for a scons based build. That
said, the Linux team is already dieing with how slow it is. We are
only building test shell, which is a fraction of the code of Chromium.
Can we spend a few days of smart engineering and at least make some
progress in this
The scons build definitely lets you build only a single target (program or
library) at a time. What is missing is the ability to compile a single
source file.
The nice thing about the scons build is that it will compile source files in
parallel and not just projects in parallel. I think this
There are some dependency scans you can skip if you're hacking away in a
single file:http://www.scons.org/doc/0.96.96/HTML/scons-user/x933.html
I've found they cut down the start up time significantly, but need to be
used with caution.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Darin Fisher [EMAIL
I don't know anything about scons internals, but how hard would it be
to fix that? Have a scons server that sat around waiting for
commands to build (or event watched a set of directories for changes
and updated its dependency graph on the fly)?
--Amanda
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Darin
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Pam Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today I got our custom (platform-specific) layout test results mostly
straightened out. (Apologies for the large-ish sync that will cause.)
If you re-baseline tests, please keep reading.
We no longer keep kjs or common
14 matches
Mail list logo
