On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Tim Steele t...@chromium.org wrote:
I can take a stab at more formal heuristics for bookmarks, at least. We
will have a better idea of actual limiting parameters for bookmarks (as in
how many operations in a certain time frame is reasonable) once the
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paweł Hajdan Jr.
phajdan...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 00:44, Ian Fette i...@chromium.org wrote:
In an effort to provide more transparency into what the team is working
on, I'm sending out the meeting notes from the green tree task force to
2009/10/27 Evan Martin e...@chromium.org:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I'm not sure if chrome resp. libnpGoogleNaClPluginChrome.a
does it right with exporting these symbols as plain C symbols because
this might conflict with other existing
2009/10/26 Antoine Labour pi...@google.com:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/23 Anselm R Garbe garb...@gmail.com:
I rebuilt chromium yesterday from yesterday's tip on Linux (last time
I did that was about 8 weeks ago or so). I'm involved in
Greetings chromium-developers,
(Please feel free to ignore this e-mail if you are not interested in
our spell-checker and its dictionaries.)
As you may know, we have updated hunspell used by Chromium to the
latest version. It adds lots of features that improve its
spell-checking quality
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Mike Belshe mbel...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Jens Alfke s...@chromium.org wrote:
Do we plan to switch the Mac build of Chromium to use tcmalloc instead of
the system malloc? I thought this was the case, but I can't find any bug
When we were all out in MtnView last, one of the action items for some
of the Mac QA folks was to get a machine that triple-boots
(Mac/Win/Linux) so that we could run the same version of chrome on the
same hardware and see the differences between platforms and then to
run a bunch of tests
Darin Fisher wrote:
I suspect this is at least one of the bigger issues.
I also suspect that process creation is a problem on Windows. We should
probably look into having a spare child process on Windows to minimize new
tab jank. Maybe there is a bug on this already?
This shouldn't be
[Subtly setting expectations here]
Updated http://crbug.com/25628 accordingly. You have your answer in
this feature request and read my comment on it before adding any
comment. (as in don't add any please)
Feel free to star it though.
But as a sane person, well, as sane as I can be, I can only
2009/10/28 Hironori Bono (坊野 博典) hb...@chromium.org:
Even though this is still a random thought, I would personally like to
use chromium to evaluate the new dictionaries: i.e. uploading the new
dictionaries to our dictionary server, changing the chromium code to
use the updated ones, asking
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure that enabling USE_SYSTEM_MALLOC will also lead to corruption
since WebKit is not hermetic (we allocate things externally that we then
delete inside WebKit).
-Darin
Wouha! That really limit our capacity to
One of my personal OKRs for this quarter is to identify areas where we
need better docs, especially on Mac where we've been so busy getting
caught up that we haven't taken the time to explain how things work.
To that end, I've started a doc on our public Google Code wiki:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org wrote:
My three laptops have relatively comparable hardware and run Chrome on
Windows, Mac, and Linux respectively. The Linux version of Chrome
feels ridiculously faster than Windows and Mac. Do we understand why
this is? Can
Dear chromerers,
Looks like reference build (for buildbots) has been changed recently.
Does anybody know exact build which is a reference now?
yours,
anton.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Paweł Hajdan Jr.
phajdan...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 00:44, Ian Fette i...@chromium.org wrote:
In an effort to provide more transparency into what the team is working
on, I'm sending out the meeting notes from the green tree task force to
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 16:35, Scott Violet s...@chromium.org wrote:
I suspect this happens when the theme resources aren't correctly
built. Perhaps we should have this check early on in ui tests so that
we don't run any tests if this check fails.
Yeah, I was even thinking about a build
I'm confused by the diagram. In step 5, why does F' get added to the
model. Are you saying the 'extension cloud' service always creates a
new bookmark, without verifying if the model already has a matching
entry?
-Scott
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Tim Steele t...@chromium.org wrote:
Do you have anti-virus software on your Windows machines?
2009/10/28 Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org:
My three laptops have relatively comparable hardware and run Chrome on
Windows, Mac, and Linux respectively. The Linux version of Chrome
feels ridiculously faster than Windows and Mac. Do
An additional note:
Most Windows boxes have an AV installed while most linux boxes don't.
Never underestimate the sluggishness of AVs.
M-A
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org wrote:
My three
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
3) Startup time is faster than calculator.
I'm not sure if you're kidding. Do you mean Windows calculator?
On my home linux box (Jaunty, reasonably fast),
warm startup time of chrome is less
than the warm startup time of
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
3) Startup time is faster than calculator.
I'm not sure if you're kidding. Do you mean Windows calculator?
On my home linux box (Jaunty, reasonably fast),
Will we have any chance to ship both, and randomly select (at startup
time??) between the two dictionaries? Alternatively, could we ship a series
of dev builds, and alternate use of old an new dictionaries.
The bottom line IMO is that when running experiments, you need the closest
to
Is the compiler tool chain 64-bit in VS2010? In that case, the biggest
advantage may be to produce WPO builds on 64 bit machines.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote:
[Subtly setting expectations here]
Updated http://crbug.com/25628 accordingly. You
From the svn log:
r30141 | ch...@chromium.org | 2009-10-26 18:00:16 -0700 (Mon, 26 Oct
2009) | 6 lines
Update Windows reference build to r30072.
BUG=25200
TEST=ref build runs locally, buildbot tests continue
to work
Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/339015
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at
Thanks a lot, Tony.
yours,
anton.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Tony Chang t...@chromium.org wrote:
From the svn log:
r30141 | ch...@chromium.org | 2009-10-26 18:00:16 -0700 (Mon, 26 Oct
2009) | 6 lines
Update Windows reference build to r30072.
BUG=25200
TEST=ref build runs locally,
FTR, you could have got the same info with:
src\chrome\tools\test\reference_build\chromechrome about:version
M-A
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anton Muhin ant...@chromium.org wrote:
Thanks a lot, Tony.
yours,
anton.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Tony Chang t...@chromium.org
Cool, thanks a lot.
yours,
anton.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.org wrote:
FTR, you could have got the same info with:
src\chrome\tools\test\reference_build\chromechrome about:version
M-A
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anton Muhin
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
3) Startup time is faster than calculator.
I'm not sure if you're kidding. Do you mean Windows calculator?
On my home linux box (Jaunty, reasonably fast),
warm startup time of chrome is less
than the warm startup time
On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
When I benchmarked this a few months ago on a fairly ordinary Mac, it
took nearly 100ms from the time that the browser started a renderer to
the time that the renderer was ready to service requests. A decent
chunk of that is load time and
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Scott Violet s...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm confused by the diagram. In step 5, why does F' get added to the
model. Are you saying the 'extension cloud' service always creates a
new bookmark, without verifying if the model already has a matching
entry?
This
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Jens Alfke s...@google.com wrote:
Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to continue a forked process on
OS X if it uses any higher-level (above POSIX) APIs.
Nothing says we have to use fork(). Always having a renderer process
started and waiting for
On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
From a performance perspective, it may be critical to use tcmalloc
to match safari performance. It was literally a 50% speedup on most
of the DOM perf when running on WinXP.
Yeah, I've profiled some of the Dromaeo benchmarks, and the DOM-
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Nick Carter n...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Scott Violet s...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm confused by the diagram. In step 5, why does F' get added to the
model. Are you saying the 'extension cloud' service always creates a
new
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Erik Corry erik.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have anti-virus software on your Windows machines?
No. I could editorialize here, but I wont.
Adam
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list:
Jens Alfke wrote:
Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to continue a forked process on OS X
if it uses any higher-level (above POSIX) APIs. The main problem is that
Mach ports can't be replicated across the fork, so if any ports were already
open, they'll all be bogus in the new process. And
On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
My proposal is to fork a new process, exec the renderer, and then let
it bring itself up. That's exactly how we start renderers now. The
only difference is that I'm suggesting we should always keep a spare
one warmed up and ready to go,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jens Alfke s...@chromium.org wrote:
On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:10 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:
From a performance perspective, it may be critical to use tcmalloc to match
safari performance. It was literally a 50% speedup on most of the DOM perf
when running on
Jens Alfke wrote:
How much would that increase memory use? (says the guy on the Memory task
force...) I.e. what's the RPRVT of a warmed-up renderer process?
Does it matter? At least for the startup case, that's a renderer we
know we'll need anyway.
You could use this argument to shoot down
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Nick Carter n...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Scott Violet s...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm confused by the diagram. In step 5, why does F' get added to the
model. Are you saying the 'extension cloud' service always creates a
new
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Mike Belshe mbel...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Jens Alfke s...@chromium.org wrote:
Do we plan to switch the Mac build of Chromium to use tcmalloc instead of
the system malloc? I thought this was the case, but I can't find any bug
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Aaron Boodman a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Tim Steele t...@chromium.org wrote:
I can take a stab at more formal heuristics for bookmarks, at least. We
will have a better idea of actual limiting parameters for bookmarks (as
in
Ugh!
I don't think there is going to be a way to make it impossible to
write poorly written extensions. Perhaps sync should have a way to
detect lots of mutations from an extension and then disable either the
extension or itself at some point with a suitable warning. It should
certainly
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
General comments: Linux tends to be lighter which means it does
better on older hardware, so depending on what sorts of laptops you're
talking about that could be a major factor. Windowses later than 2000
or so need
On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Mark Mentovai wrote:
You could use this argument to shoot down keeping a spare warmed-up
renderer ready to go at other times, but I don't think it's relevant
to the startup case.
We weren't just talking about startup — f'rinstance, Darin mentioned
new-tab
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Tim Steele t...@chromium.org wrote:
The update{foo} update{blech} case is most likely a different kind of
failure, though, and I was thinking we could limit that with a generic cap
on just the number of updates in a period of time. From the data we have
seen
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jens Alfke s...@google.com wrote:
Not on a cold launch, since the renderer uses a lot of code (like
WebCore) that the browser doesn't, and will be paging that stuff in.
We'll need to benchmark both scenarios.
Indeed. Proof of concept code that we can compare
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
General comments: Linux tends to be lighter which means it does
better on older hardware, so depending on what sorts of laptops you're
talking
If I'm not mistaken, I think like most everyone running on linux is using
the make build nowadays, and the make build seems to work well enough for
most people. The only time I hear someone mention the scons build, it's in
reference to you broke the scons build, or so you developed on make. Did
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour pi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org wrote:
I bet the reason Windows startup feels slower is whatever drawing
operation we're using for the main content area is slow. The
top-to-bottom sweep
Have you tried starring http://crbug.com/22044 ?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, I think like most everyone running on linux is using
the make build nowadays, and the make build seems to work well enough for
most people.
Not that it is effective :)
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.org wrote:
Have you tried starring http://crbug.com/22044 ?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, I think like most everyone running
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote:
Not that it is effective :)
Starred. :)
Now what?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.org
wrote:
Have you tried starring http://crbug.com/22044 ?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
-Ben
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel
mar...@chromium.orgwrote:
Not that it is effective :)
Starred. :)
Now what?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM,
FWIW, I build with scons. I only build Linux once a month or so, and
the default build instructions told me to use scons. I'd imagine lots
of people who are just playing with chrome on the side use scons too.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
If
mmoss has been working on the make gyp generator, maybe he has a
better feel for what's keeping us from switching.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.org
wrote:
Not that it is
So we have set of tests for gyp which are green for all the generators other
than make.
I believe mmoss has been whittling away on them, and I think its down to
just 2 failures.
go/gypbot
After that its just a matter of the will to switch over the buildbots and
fix any unforeseen issues.
-BradN
Looks like the failures are part of the same test case.
It's the case where the same source file is built as part of two different
targets using different defines.
The make generator appears to build it only one way and use it in both
targets.
-BradN
2009/10/28 Bradley Nelson
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour pi...@google.com wrote:
For the UI bits, I'm willing to believe that GTK, which uses cairo, hence
XRender for rendering, is hardware accelerated and in any case pipelined in
another process (X), and so is faster than serialized, software
I ran into that yesterday as well trying to make a make generator fix. I
think I'll hang on until mmoss gets back since I heard he's in the middle of
trying to fix that. But assuming the unittest can all be made green, then
it's update the public instructions, and finally buildbot work?
I can
Updating the public instructions would be helpful! Please proceed.
I'd be willing do the buildbot switchover, unless someone is more eager.
I'm a little surprised that the failing test doesn't hork something in the
chromium build.
I known that there are some shared files like that (though it may
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Elliot Glaysher (Chromium)
e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour pi...@google.com wrote:
For the UI bits, I'm willing to believe that GTK, which uses cairo, hence
XRender for rendering, is hardware accelerated and in any
I actually got some weird warnings on the make build a while back when I
specified the same file in two sources entries...something about circular
dependencies and make ignore one. But don't remember the exact scenario.
I betcha it isn't a problem in chrome cause it'd only trigger a bug if the
Yeah, that's about it. It's definitely time to make this switch. After the
gyp tests for make are green, it just needs someone with the right buidlbot
knowledge + time to work out the details.
(Last time I did a comparison of the make vs. scons build output there were
still some differences in
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Nico Weber tha...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Elliot Glaysher (Chromium)
e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Antoine Labour pi...@google.com wrote:
For the UI bits, I'm willing to believe that GTK, which uses
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
I actually got some weird warnings on the make build a while back when I
specified the same file in two sources entries...something about circular
dependencies and make ignore one. But don't remember the exact
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.orgwrote:
I actually got some weird warnings on the make build a while back when I
specified the same file in two sources entries...something about circular
dependencies and make ignore one. But don't remember the exact
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑)
ajw...@chromium.org wrote:
I actually got some weird warnings on the make build a while back when I
specified the same file in two sources entries...something about
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Adam Barth aba...@chromium.org wrote:
Linux draw order:
1) Fill entire window with blue (This looks bad, can we use a
different color? White?).
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=20059
Looking at it again, I imagine one of the widgets has no
I'm preparing to land a change to the Chromium XP and Google Chrome FYI
build bots that make sure all Windows DLL and EXE files were built with
/NXCOMPAT and /DYNAMICBASE. You can read about these neat security features
here:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure that enabling USE_SYSTEM_MALLOC will also lead to
corruption
since WebKit is not hermetic (we allocate things externally that
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Marc-Antoine Ruel mar...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure that enabling USE_SYSTEM_MALLOC will also lead to
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30832
FYI the chromium side is here: http://codereview.chromium.org/337032/show
-- Evan Stade
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30832
It is generally quite important to attach the patch :)
AGL
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list:
Thankfully I'm telelegetic and can read it from here. Looks amazing.
Ping me once it's up and I'll give it the ol' r+.
-eric
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Adam Langley a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Adam Langley a...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30832
It is generally quite important to attach the patch :)
AGL
oo, thanks for the pointer. These
Macs appear to support MADV_DONTNEED (at least they are doc'ed as such).
However, wtf/Platform.h seems to imply Apple uses mmap/munmap instead of
madvise for their tcmalloc fork.
The tcmalloc in third_party does not appear to have the mmap/munmap support
seen in WTF's tcmalloc, so our
Hi Evan,
Thank you for your feedback.
2009/10/28 Evan Martin e...@chromium.org:
It still might be worth soliciting feedback from users directly. For
example, if the new dictionary is missing a common word the above
measure would get a high count of Add to Dictionary, and maybe users
could
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Evan Stade est...@chromium.org wrote:
oo, thanks for the pointer. These computer things are tricky.
The files are *in* the computer?
PK
P.S. Bonus quote: Math is hard. Let's go shopping!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium
Before launch, we asked a team of international Googlers to assess quality.
We could reach out to that group again. Anders Sandholm coordinated that
effort and would be a good person to reach out to if we want to repeat it.
2009/10/28 Hironori Bono (坊野 博典) hb...@chromium.org
Hi Evan,
Thank
79 matches
Mail list logo
