Non-tier 1 builders: NSPR usage?

2016-01-15 Thread Ted Mielczarek
Hello, I'm interested in feedback from anyone out there that's doing builds on non-Tier 1 platforms. Specifically, I want to know if you build --with-system-nspr or not. I've got patches[1] to stop using NSPR's autoconf build system in favor of moz.build files, but I've only made them support our

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Kyle Huey
As the XPIDL module owner, I support this. - Kyle On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Historically we have enforced updating the XPIDL interface UUIDs when you > made any changes to it. This was needed because of two reasons: > > * Backwards

Re: Intent to implement and ship: WebKitCSSMatrix

2016-01-15 Thread Mike Taylor
On 1/14/16 9:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote: It seems to me this is important to have behind a preference that is specific to new webkit-prefixed features, given the compatibility risks of shipping support for some but not all webkit-prefixed features. (It's possible it could be the same

Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
Historically we have enforced updating the XPIDL interface UUIDs when you made any changes to it. This was needed because of two reasons: * Backwards compatibility with binary extensions. Since many changes to XPIDL interfaces caused the underlying v-table layout to change, revving the UUID

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Patrick McManus
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. or cheers. cheers! ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org

Re: Dominator tree memory analysis now in Nightly

2016-01-15 Thread Kyle Huey
This is awesome. We've talked about how much we've wanted this since the early days of MemShrink back in 2011. Thanks to everyone who was involved. - Kyle On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Nick Fitzgerald wrote: > Hi folks! > > Dominator trees give you fine-grained

Re: Intent to Implement/Ship: document.elementsFromPoint

2016-01-15 Thread Mike Taylor
On 1/14/16 9:46 PM, Kyle Machulis wrote: *Summary*: We don't currently support documents.elementsFromPoint, while IE and Chrome do (I'm not sure if Opera and Safari have gotten around to it yet). Opera does have document.elementsFromPoint and Safari does not (yet). I couldn't find an open bug

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Bobby Holley
Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we could potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot of comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat would be tricky, but is potentially solvable.

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2016-01-15 2:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we could potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot of comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2016-01-15 1:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 1/15/16 10:58 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: * My proposal has no bearing on whether changes to XPIDL interfaces needs to be considered as part of the uplift approval process, as such changes can still have an impact on JS extension compatibility. This

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Joshua Cranmer 
On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we could potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot of comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat

Re: Non-tier 1 builders: NSPR usage?

2016-01-15 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 08:21:09AM -0500, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > Hello, > > I'm interested in feedback from anyone out there that's doing builds on > non-Tier 1 platforms. Specifically, I want to know if you build > --with-system-nspr or not. I've got patches[1] to stop using NSPR's > autoconf

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2016-01-15 7:44 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:28:13PM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer  wrote: On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer  wrote: > On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: >> >> Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win >> to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we >> could >>

Re: Proposal to stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interfaces

2016-01-15 Thread Trevor Saunders
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:28:13PM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer  > wrote: > > On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> > >> Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win > >> to making IIDs

Re: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics will ride the trains behind a pref

2016-01-15 Thread Lars Hansen
It's not enabled by default because the API is probably not fully baked yet; until the spec reaches Stage 3 at TC39 we should expect things to be fluid. I don't expect that milestone to be reached until this summer. We've discussed enabling by default on Aurora, DevEd, and Beta once we reach