On 2009-09-01, at 04:26, Eric Seidel wrote:
It seems we have a leak bot again! Thanks to all who made that
possible!
There seem to be a bunch of leaks though. They all seem CFNetwork
related:
http://build.webkit.org/results/SnowLeopard%20Intel%20Leaks/r47923%20(318)/
I'm not sure if
On Aug 31, 2009, at 7:44 PM, bweinst...@apple.com wrote:
+if (m_renderer-isTextArea())
+return static_castHTMLInputElement*(m_renderer-node())-
readOnly();
This doesn't look right. I think we should be casting to
HTMLTextAreaElement. A textarea in the test case might have
Hi Oliver,
it seems on ARM using WTF_USE_JSVALUE32, the internal value of a date
object is sometimes freed by the garbage collector.
More specifically:
The double (millisecond) representation of a date object (returned by a
new Date expression) is stored in JSWrapperObject: m_internalValue. This
On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:13 AM, hodovan.ren...@stud.u-szeged.hu wrote:
Hi All!
Running some LaoutTests I found the following:
There is an increment object in css. If the children of this object
was modified (append or remove), then the rest of the list wasn't
adapt to this.
E.g.: append to
On Sep 1, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Kent Hansen wrote:
Hi Oliver,
ext Oliver Hunt wrote:
I am concerned about the performance impact of changing
getPropertyNames, as well as correctness -- getPropertyNames does
specifically exist for the support of for..in enumeration.
Any concerns about adding
Hi,
I believe this is the bug you are pointing.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23262
I put a patch which may fix the issue, unfortunately this isn't reviewed yet
though (could someone review this please ? :)
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Simon Fraser simon.fra...@apple.com wrote:
Hi Zoltan.
JSWrapperObject::markChildren is responsible for marking the
internalValue of a DateInstance. Is that function not being called?
Geoff
On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:16 AM, Zoltan Herczeg wrote:
Hi Oliver,
it seems on ARM using WTF_USE_JSVALUE32, the internal value of a date
object is
On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Adam Roben wrote:
2009-09-01 Adam Roben aro...@apple.com
Reviewed by NOBODY (OOPS!)
Need a short description of this patch (OOPS!)
Need a bug title and URL (OOPS!)
What do others think?
With the detriment of adding Y.A.O. (yet another
Perhaps worth reexamining lessons learned from (PLT?) Scheme's
distinction between units and modules.
Security, assuming beyond the SOP, is worth considering. Module
loading would be a giant boon for writing secure apps if the loader can
specify the load environment (e.g., empty it, share
9 matches
Mail list logo
