On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:19:43 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 12-07-25 1:45 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote:
gt; On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:45:43 AM UTC-7, Bobby Holley wrote:
gt;gt; On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
gt;gt;
gt;gt; amp;gt; On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:04
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:55:15 AM UTC-7, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:45:22 PM UTC+3, Dave Mandelin wrote:
gt; SpiderMonkey officially has a C++ API now, so nullptr should be OK.
There is at least one wrinkle, which is that we need to support jsd for a
while yet
On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:03:38 PM UTC-7, Taras Glek wrote:
Hi,
According to metrics we have about 1TB of telemetry data in hadoop. This
is almost a year worth of telemetry data. Our telemetry ping packets
keep growing as we add more probes. As the hadoop database gets bigger,
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:03:24 PM UTC-7, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Hi everyone,
The way the current situation happens is that many of the developers
ignore the Talos regression emails that go to dev-tree-management,
Talos is widely disliked and distrusted by developers, because it's hard
On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Gregory Szorc wrote:
So, 2.6 or 2.7?
Thanks for bringing this up! Count me as another vote for 2.7. I don't like
using obsolete language versions outside of necessity, and I've never found it
difficult to install Python.
I think MozillaBuild is
Following the recent discussion about PGO, I really wanted to understand what
benefits PGO gives Firefox on Windows, if any--I was skeptical. Rafael (IIRC)
posted some Talos numbers, but I didn't know how to interpret them. So I
decided to try a few simple experiments to try to falsify the
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:00:13 PM UTC-7, Mike Hommey wrote:
If you copy omni.ja from the PGO build to the opt build, you'll be able
to see if everything comes from that. We're planning to make that
currently PGO-only optimization run on all builds. (bug 773171)
Excellent suggestion,
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:59:10 AM UTC-7, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
If you're interested in the benchmark side of things, it's fairly easy
to compare now that we build both PGO and non-PGO builds on a regular
basis. I'm having a little trouble getting graphserver to give me recent
data,
At the last Tuesday meeting I foolishly agreed :-) to take charge of following
up on this discussion and seeing if we can come to a decision. So, here goes:
First, I want to try to pour some gasoline on the dying embers and suggest that
perhaps we should totally rearrange everything. As a
I'm still thinking about PGO:
1. I did another test. I wanted to know the effect on games, so I played
BananaBread and eyeballed modal fps. (If anyone knows of a more accurate way to
measure fps in the game, let me know.) I got:
opt 38
pgo 41
Similar magnitude to other domains.
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 6:33:39 PM UTC-7, therealbr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:47:57 PM UTC-7, Dave Mandelin wrote:
At the last Tuesday meeting I foolishly agreed :-) to take charge of
following up on this discussion and seeing if we can come to a decision
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:26:34 AM UTC-7, Henrik Skupin wrote:
As nearly all of you agreed on a flat folder structure makes a lot of
sense if only one type of test is present. I second that, and we
shouldn't make use of a 'tests' subfolder in such a case. But it would
be fantastic if we
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:53:37 AM UTC-8, Alex Keybl wrote:
Discussions are ongoing as to whether disabling the test is our
best path forward here, given engineering opposition to disabling
PGO.
I strongly recommend disabling the test for 32-bit Linux PGO and moving on. Bug
799295
On Friday, January 11, 2013 3:51:57 PM UTC-8, Gary Kwong wrote:
Thinking of making the top level goals bugs and hanging related work off
them as deps. What do people think of this idea? Is it maintainable?
Sounds reasonable, they could be meta bugs, marked with the meta keyword.
Maybe
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Asa Dotzler a...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 2/4/2013 6:59 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote:
I was talking to Taras and Naveed about this today, and what also
came up was:
4. Do the work to make 64-bit JS jit perf as good as 32-bit JS jit
perf, and then switch to x64 builds
On Monday, March 4, 2013 5:15:56 AM UTC-8, Jim Mathies wrote:
For metrofx we’ve been working on getting omtc and apzc running in the
browser. One of the things we need to be able to do is run performance tests
that tell us whether or not the work we’re doing is having a positive effect
on
On Monday, March 4, 2013 5:42:39 AM UTC-8, Ed Morley wrote:
(CCing auto-to...@mozilla.com)
jmaher and jhammel will be able to comment more on the talos specifics,
but few thoughts off the top of my head:
It seems like we're conflating multiple issues here:
1) [talos] is a separate repo
On Monday, March 4, 2013 5:17:29 PM UTC-8, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 3/4/13 5:09 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote:
We already don't back back out changes for regressing a benchmark like
we back them out for regressing tests. I think this is at least
partially because a general sentiment
18 matches
Mail list logo
