Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

Telemetry reports 99.77% with SSE2… http://people.mozilla.org/~danderson/moz-gfx-telemetry/www/#view=system — - Milan > On Jan 29, 2016, at 15:33 , Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > > I also want to

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On 1/29/2016 2:05 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: On 1/29/16 9:43 AM, Ashley Gullen wrote: FWIW, the Steam Hardware Survey says 99.99% of users have SSE2 (under "other settings"): http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey For that to be valid, one must assume that the population of Firefox users

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > >> On Feb 1, 2016, at 18:00 , Xidorn Quan wrote: >> ... >> >> It seems to me if we do, whether enabling SSE2 on x86 doesn't really >> matter unless we have a good reason. Fewer and fewer

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 06:42:30PM -0500, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > > > On Feb 1, 2016, at 18:00 , Xidorn Quan > > wrote: ... > > > > It seems to me if we do, whether enabling SSE2 on x86 doesn't really > > matter unless we have a good reason. Fewer and fewer people would

Re: Unsafe CPOWs are about to be outlawed in browser code

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:39:00AM +0300, Dmitry Gutov wrote: On 02/02/2016 12:29 AM, Kris Maglione wrote: That falls into the category of "unless it is calling browser code and making it do something unsafe". That's too bad. I'm just reusing a querying function from there, and a pretty

Re: Touch events enabled on Windows desktop (nightly only)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote: > Several people including me have been bitten by this, but based on the > last comment on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1166564, it > seems the current plan is "fix a11y to work on e10s so we can

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Frédéric Wang wrote: > I tried updating the source code of WOFF2 to the latest upstream > version. Unfortunately, try server builds fail on OSX and mobile devices > because the C++11 class std::unique_ptr does not seem to be available. > IIUC

Re: Touch events enabled on Windows desktop (nightly only)

On 01/02/2016 21:46, Justin Dolske wrote: On 2/1/16 9:51 AM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: Oh, I should also mention that currently many (if not all) Windows touchscreen devices have e10s disabled by default, because a touchscreen seems to trigger the accessibility code which disables e10s. And if

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

SSE2 is always available in 64bit CPUs, it's included in the AMD64 specification. So I'd be surprised if compilers didn't automatically use SSE2 for 64bit targets. Another interesting data point is that Windows 8.1 doesn't work without SSE2 [1], but I guess most people that use Windows 8.1

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > > > On 1/29/2016 2:05 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: >> >> On 1/29/16 9:43 AM, Ashley Gullen wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, the Steam Hardware Survey says 99.99% of users have SSE2 (under >>> "other settings"):

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

I don't think there are any compilers that support x64 without SSE2. SSE2 registers are required for passing float parameters in both MS and System V ABIs. -Jeff On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Benjamin Smedberg

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote: >> >> Surprisingly, perhaps, there are a lot of people using Firefox on 32-bit >> Windows. If I’m reading the data correctly, more than half. A small >> percentage of those don’t have SSE2. > > It's not surprising to

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On 2/1/16 3:56 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > 64-bits Firefox was only officially released recently, and AFAIK, we're not > offering 32-bits Firefox users an upgrade to 64-bits Firefox if their > system permits. How about we started doing that? There are two steps planned to bring 64-bit Firefox to

Intent to implement: Opus audio in mp4

We intend to support the Opus audio codec in mp4 fragments and files. Opus is a royalty-free audio compression format developed by Mozilla (Xiph), Microsoft (Skype), Broadcom and others. It offers better quality for both voice and music, scaling over a wider range of network speeds and with lower

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote: >>> >>> Surprisingly, perhaps, there are a lot of people using Firefox on 32-bit >>> Windows. If I’m reading the data correctly, more

Re: Does SSE2 usage still need to be conditional?

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Milan Sreckovic wrote: > Surprisingly, perhaps, there are a lot of people using Firefox on 32-bit > Windows. If I’m reading the data correctly, more than half. A small > percentage of those don’t have SSE2. Do we have any, say

[Firefox Desktop] Issues found: January 25th to January 29th

Hi everyone, Here's the list of new issues found and filed by the Desktop Manual QA team last week,*January 25th - January 29th* (week 4). Additional details on the team's priorities last week, as well as the plans for the current week are available at:

Re: How to remove #ifdef XP_MACOSX in xul files?

You can use runtime checks for the OS, e.g. using Services.appinfo Philipp On 2/1/16 11:09 AM, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) wrote: > I means there is any instruction in XUL > to remove the #ifdef XP_MACOSX > but still preserve the semantics. > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Martin Thomson

Re: How to remove #ifdef XP_MACOSX in xul files?

I means there is any instruction in XUL to remove the #ifdef XP_MACOSX but still preserve the semantics. On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > sed -i~ -e '/#ifdef XP_MACOSX/d' xul files > > I think that we need more information on what it is that you intend

Re: Touch events enabled on Windows desktop (nightly only)

Oh, I should also mention that currently many (if not all) Windows touchscreen devices have e10s disabled by default, because a touchscreen seems to trigger the accessibility code which disables e10s. And if e10s is disabled, APZ is disabled, which means no APZ touch scrolling. If you encounter

Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

Dear all, I'm trying to upgrade our local copy of OTS to version 5.0.0 [1]. OTS relies on the Brotli and WOFF2 libraries, whose source code we currently include in mozilla-cental. I tried updating the source code of WOFF2 to the latest upstream version. Unfortunately, try server builds fail on

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

Le 01/02/2016 23:38, Nathan Froyd a écrit : > We're working on moving all of our platforms to use a C++11-ish > standard library. For std::unique_ptr, at least, the best tack is to > write a small polyfill based on mfbt/UniquePtr.h. (It's not clear to > me how your suggestion with std::vector

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

On 2016-02-01 5:38 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Frédéric Wang wrote: I tried updating the source code of WOFF2 to the latest upstream version. Unfortunately, try server builds fail on OSX and mobile devices because the C++11 class std::unique_ptr

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 04:29 AM, Frédéric Wang wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm trying to upgrade our local copy of OTS to version 5.0.0 [1]. OTS > relies on the Brotli and WOFF2 libraries, whose source code we currently > include in mozilla-cental. > > I tried updating the source code of WOFF2 to

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

Lee Salzman came up with a hacky solution to this problem for the Skia update that he's working on. I haven't seen it yet, but apparently it builds. -Jeff On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Frédéric Wang wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm trying to upgrade our local copy of OTS to

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

Le 01/02/2016 16:23, Ehsan Akhgari a écrit : > > Also the lack of libc++ on OSX makes this an issue there, which should > explain the OSX issue mentioned above. > Yes, I tried to follow what's done in build/clang-plugin/moz.build This allowed to compile the c++ files but linking failed. --

Re: Unsafe CPOWs are about to be outlawed in browser code

четверг, 28 января 2016 г., 19:57:59 UTC+3 пользователь Dave Townsend написал: > I don't think that this is meant to impact add-on code at all, unless > it is calling browser code and making it do something unsafe, in which > case it would be up to the add-on developer to fix that. It's probably >

Re: Use of C++11 std::unique_ptr for the WOFF2 module

On 2016-02-01 9:33 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 04:29 AM, Frédéric Wang wrote: Dear all, I'm trying to upgrade our local copy of OTS to version 5.0.0 [1]. OTS relies on the Brotli and WOFF2 libraries, whose source code we currently include in mozilla-cental. I tried

Re: Flexbox + img aspect ratio

Thank you Daniel On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 12:50:55 AM UTC+2, Daniel Holbert wrote: > I believe this is a version of > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030952 > > The underlying issue is described here: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030952#c2 > > I

Re: PSA: Please stop revving UUIDs when changing XPIDL interface

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > >> (Sending this in another thread in case people didn't see my note at the >> end of the original thread.) >> >> The new rules are in

Re: Bug Program Next Steps

On 01/31/2016 08:35 PM, Axel Hecht wrote: I'm also generally concerned how UX bugs or crashes would fit into these buckets. UX bugs, and possibly any other flavor of ideation, have the majority of work associated with "should we do this or not". And crashes as a single crash stack are hardly