Hi everyone,
This past week was another busy week chasing down performance issues in
Firefox. We managed to knock out a few issues, get closer to close out a
couple of really high impact ones, and are making good progress on starting
to get performance data from telemetry which will hopefully
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:35:10PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
What's the current outlook on letting chrome JS read ArrayBuffers as
opposed to JS strings where the high 8 bits are zero and the low 8
bits are the byte values from XPCOM streams? (Or letting chrome JS
access things that are
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:23 AM, R Kent James wrote:
> On 3/15/2017 3:51 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
>> after Firefox 57 when
>> Webextensions are the only extensions, if our product no longer needs some
>> functionality (and it's "API"), let's remove it. Quickly and
On 3/15/2017 3:51 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
after Firefox 57 when
Webextensions are the only extensions, if our product no longer needs some
functionality (and it's "API"), let's remove it. Quickly and ruthlessly. We
need to actively work to maintain less code.
I'm struggling to have a big
On 16.03.17 09:08, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
We should try marking nsIOutputStream builtinclass on trunk right now.
As far as I can tell, this should just work.
No adverse effects on Thunderbird, I hope:
https://dxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/search?q=nsIOutputStream=false
As far as I can see we
On 3/13/17 11:36 AM, Steve Fink wrote:
There's a whitelist of "safe" things that we assume will never be
overridden. But now I can remove everything that treats nsISupports
specially.
Things can still be implemented in chrome JS via XPCWrappedJS, right?
Assuming the analysis will consider all
Do we need to keep caring about
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170416 once XPCOM
extensions are no more?
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>
> 1) Is there devtools support for this (e.g. to be able to see what
> intersection observers are registered where)? If not, are there at least
> bugs tracking it?
I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1347849 for this.
MutationObserver would be a good one to add support for
On 3/16/17 3:35 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Do we need to keep caring about
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170416 once XPCOM
extensions are no more?
A first glance, no.
We should try marking nsIOutputStream builtinclass on trunk right now.
As far as I can tell, this should just
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/15/17 1:32 PM, Tobias Schneider wrote:
>> 2.3) Platform tests are in the process of being upstreamed by Google (
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4384).
>
> That seems to be in limbo for well over a
I apologize for the delays in bug 1246615. It fell off my radar with a
series of trips. I've set up a meeting tomorrow to at least identify who is
responsible for this decision, because it's not exactly me. I analyzed some
data in the bug which I'll repeat here.
Here is an analysis of the
On 27/02/17 19:47, Simon Sapin wrote:
On 27/02/17 19:30, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
FWIW, |cargo tree| is a very helpful tool to figure out who's pulling in a
crate.
Thanks, but what I'm trying to figure out isn't whose
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Ehsan Akhgari
wrote:
>
> Now, on to the credits section. I’d like to take a moment to recognize
> the work of the following individuals who have helped with various aspects
> of the Quantum Flow project. Thank you very much for your
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:07:19AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
This is why a while ago we decided to disallow the addition of new
synchronous IPC messages by default (bug 1336919) to avoid programmers adding
more issues of this nature to the code base.
Are there any plans to do something
For a long time now we've been writing JS code that waits for promises
using Task.jsm and generator functions. Recently though the JS team added
support for the JS standard way of doing this, async/await:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/async_function
If you are seeing this error when you try to do |git mozreview push|,
update your version-control-tools. Then you'll see a different error. Work
related to that is being looked at in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1338530
Andrew
___
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:29:15PM -0700, Dave Townsend wrote:
Writing code in standard JS is always better for the web, makes it easier
to onboard new engineers and allows for better support in developer tools.
So I'd like to propose that we switch to the standard way of writing these
functions
For modules that have already converted, is there any performance change
(good or bad) between async / await vs. Task?
- Ryan
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Kris Maglione
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:29:15PM -0700, Dave Townsend wrote:
>
>> Writing code in
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:39:06PM -0500, J. Ryan Stinnett wrote:
For modules that have already converted, is there any performance change
(good or bad) between async / await vs. Task?
I haven't noticed any differences either way, but I also haven't
done any explicit profiling. There's
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Kris Maglione
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:07:19AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
>> This is why a while ago we decided to disallow the addition of new
>> synchronous IPC messages by default (bug 1336919) to avoid programmers
>>
It would be useful to know if most of those users are just downgrading the
previous version (N-1 for release, N-7 for ESR), and how quickly they
return to a current release (assuming they do!).
This would help inform to what degree we need to support (and test!) the
myriad combinations of
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:08:24PM -0400, Michael Layzell wrote:
Can we pass async functions everywhere where we use `add_task` in tests
already? If we can't, is there a tracking bug for converting all of the
test systems to support it?
Yes, add_task accepts any function which returns a
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/15/17 5:35 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> What's the current outlook on letting chrome JS read ArrayBuffers as
>> opposed to JS strings where the high 8 bits are zero and the low 8
>> bits are the byte values from
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> - mozilla-build install dir
> - visual studio install dir
> - /users/bkelly/appdada/local/temp
> - /users/bkelly (because temp dir was not enough)
>
FWIW, adding all these extra exclusions dropped my build time
Depending on your AV, if you don't exempt mozilla-central some of our tests
will get quarantined and you won't be able to build at all.
- mhoye
On Mar 16, 2017 20:34, "Ben Kelly" wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> -
Hi all,
I'm trying to configure my new windows build machine and noticed that
builds were still somewhat slow. I did:
1) Put it in high performance power profile
2) Made sure my mozilla-central dir was not being indexed for search
3) Excluded my mozilla-central directory from windows defender
Try using Sysinternals Process Monitor to see what files MsMpEng.exe is
reading.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017, at 04:26 PM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to configure my new windows build machine and noticed that
> builds were still somewhat slow. I did:
>
> 1) Put it in high performance
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Michael Hoye wrote:
> Depending on your AV, if you don't exempt mozilla-central some of our
> tests will get quarantined and you won't be able to build at all.
>
I guess I was hoping someone familiar with our build might know the answer.
:-)
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Michael Hoye wrote:
>
> Depending on your AV, if you don't exempt mozilla-central some of our
>> tests will get quarantined and you won't be able to build at all.
>>
>
>
On 2017-03-17 12:06 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Ben Kelly > wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Michael Hoye > wrote:
Depending on your AV, if you
30 matches
Mail list logo