Re: Proposed W3C Charter: WebAssembly Working Group

I've been involved in the re-drafting of this charter as part of the regular wasm WG meetings and I think we should support it. Cheers, Luke On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:10 AM L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a revised charter for: > > WebAssembly Working Group >

Re: Intent to implement: Dynamic module imports (JS 'import()' syntax)

Since dynamic import is a core part of the JS language, with dedicated syntax (`import` is not a plain function, but a fixed syntactic form), it would seem to fall under the new, underlined JS exception in the first section of

Re: Rust and --enable-shared-js

(Sorry, I polled #jsapi about this issue back when you first posted and then forgot to reply with the response.) It doesn't seem like any SM devs use --enable-shared-js for their own development but we do know that various embedders (e.g. GNOME) use the JS shared library and so we'd like to keep

Re: CPU core count game!

fbertsch helpfully wrote a query that breaks down physical cores into the % with and without HT enabled: https://sql.telemetry.mozilla.org/queries/47219/source >From this we can see that, e.g., 6.7% of systems that report "2 logical cores" (and ~2% of all systems) actually only have 1 physical

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

For additional rationale, you might be interested to read: https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2015/02/26/the-path-to-parallel-javascript/ On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Thanks! > > Am 14.01.2016 um 15:08 schrieb Lars Hansen: >> On Thu,

Proposal: revisit and implement navigator.hardwareConcurrency

Since the original m.d.p thread on hardwareConcurrency last year: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/mozilla.dev.platform/QnhfUVw9jCI/discussion the landscape has shifted (as always) and I think we should reevaluate and implement this feature. What hasn't changed are the arguments, made in the

Re: Proposal to remove `aFoo` prescription from the Mozilla style guide for C and C++

If we do unify Gecko/SpiderMonkey styles (something it seems like we're moving towards and I think would be great), it would be a real shame to switch 'cx' (a parameter to basically every function in SpiderMonkey) to 'aCx'; that would really make some eyes bleed. One compromise could be to drop

Re: The War on Warnings

In addition to judging noisiness by volume over a whole test run, can we also include any warning that happens on normal browser startup, new tab, and other vanilla browser operations? This has always annoyed me. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Bobby Holley bobbyhol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu,

Re: Is there an e10s plan for multiple content processes?

It definitely makes sense to start your performance investigation with processCount=1 since that will likely highlight the low-hanging fruit which should be fixed regardless of processCount. My question is: after a decent period of time picking the low-hanging fruit, if there is still non-trivial

Re: The e10s throbber

I think we probably want to use a longer delay than 300ms before we show the spinner. We'd also like to look into why it takes so long to re-create the layer tree when we switch to a tab. Sometimes it's caused by a janky content process, but there may be some layout/gfx improvements we

Re: The browser should cache compiled javascript code while caching html pages

I have a short summary of why caching JIT code is not necessarily a clear win for most JS in a blog post: http://blog.mozilla.org/luke/2014/01/14/asm-js-aot-compilation-and-startup-performance/#caching We do machine code for asm.js, though (as also described in the post). More interesting

proposal to use JS GC Handle/Rooted typedefs everywhere

To save typing, the JS engine has typedefs like typedef HandleJSObject* HandleObject; typedef RootedJS::Value RootedValue; and the official style is to prefer the HandleX/RootedX typedefs when there is no need to use the HandleX/RootedX template-ids directly. This issue was discussed off and