Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:36:46 AM UTC+11, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:26 PM, wrote: > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote: > > >

Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:26 PM, wrote: > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote > wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote: > > > > > And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have > > >

Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

On 1/19/2017 3:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote: > And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have > MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-) > I actually tried this with all XPIDL methods. After adding several hundred

Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote: > > > And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have > > MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-) > > > > I actually tried this with all XPIDL

Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > What would actually be very helpful would be a way to selectively turn on > checking of > *all* return values in a given file/subdirectory. Is there some > mechanism/plan for that? > Not that I know of, other than manually

Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-) Gerald (who is not volunteering!) On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC+11, Eric Rescorla wrote: > What would actually be very helpful would be a way to selectively turn on > checking of >

Re: A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

What would actually be very helpful would be a way to selectively turn on checking of *all* return values in a given file/subdirectory. Is there some mechanism/plan for that? Thanks, -Ekr On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Hi, > > We have

A reminder about MOZ_MUST_USE and [must_use]

Hi, We have two annotations that can be used to prevent missing return value checks: - MOZ_MUST_USE for C++ functions where the return type indicates success/failure, e.g. nsresult, bool (in some instances), and some other types. - [must_use] for IDL methods and properties where the nsresult

Re: Intent to harden binary injection by removing XPCOM and related xul.dll exports

Hooray! This change prevents a significant cause of crashes. Nick On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > As of this morning the important guts of this work have landed to > mozilla-central and should ride the Firefox 53 trains. Here are the >

Re: Intent to harden binary injection by removing XPCOM and related xul.dll exports

As of this morning the important guts of this work have landed to mozilla-central and should ride the Firefox 53 trains. Here are the technical details, for those interested: - The only XPCOM function intentionally exported from libxul is XRE_GetBootstrap. This function may be called once

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:58 AM, wrote: > Hey, > > a bunch of questions: > > how will you handle synchronous scripting between that process and other > frames from the same origin that aren't in that dedicated process? > If there are other toplevel windows within the

Re: [BMO] All accounts now "Require API key authentication for API requests"

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 16:03, Dylan Hardison wrote: > > As a security precaution, we have turned on the setting "Require API key > authentication for API requests" for everyone. If this has broken something, > please contact us. > > Any service or program that uses cookies

Re: [BMO] All accounts now "Require API key authentication for API requests"

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:03:37PM -0500, Dylan Hardison wrote: > As a security precaution, we have turned on the setting "Require API > key authentication for API requests" for everyone. If this has broken > something, please contact us. Seems like this has broken the pushbot bugzilla

Re: Intent to disable service workers and push in 52 ESR

This sounds like a good plan, Ben. IIUC, we're committing to support all our ESRs for a year, so anything we can do to make uplifts easier is sensible. Till brings up a good point about folks on older platforms, but it's likely they'll already have a degraded experience on many sites. I expect

Re: Deprecating XUL in new UI

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Matthew N. wrote: > Trees are the big thing that come to mind. I've heard about three non-XUL > re-implementations (IIRC mostly in devtools) which sounds like a > maintainability issue and potentially redundancy. I would rather keep using > XUL

Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Large-Allocation Header

Hey, a bunch of questions: how will you handle synchronous scripting between that process and other frames from the same origin that aren't in that dedicated process? Will it be possible for an iframe to send this header? What will happen then? What will happen if a site requests a large