I measure it as a 1% win on the PLT. -- Stephanie
On Jul 26, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Stephanie Lewis wrote: > I can do this. > > -- Stephanie Lewis > > On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> Would someone from Apple be willing to run the patch below though the >> PLT? We're doing well on our parsing benchmark (4% speedup), but the >> PLT might have a different mix of HTML. >> >> Thanks, >> Adam >> >> >> diff --git a/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp >> b/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp >> index 7a9c295..5b89c37 100644 >> --- a/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp >> +++ b/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp >> @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ HTMLTreeBuilder::HTMLTreeBuilder(HTMLTokenizer* >> tokenizer, HTMLDocument* documen >> , m_originalInsertionMode(InitialMode) >> , m_secondaryInsertionMode(InitialMode) >> , m_tokenizer(tokenizer) >> - , m_legacyTreeBuilder(shouldUseLegacyTreeBuilder(document) ? new >> LegacyHTMLTreeBuilder(document, reportErrors) : 0) >> + , m_legacyTreeBuilder(0) >> , m_lastScriptElementStartLine(uninitializedLineNumberValue) >> , m_scriptToProcessStartLine(uninitializedLineNumberValue) >> , m_fragmentScriptingPermission(FragmentScriptingAllowed) >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> We're getting close to enabling the HTML5 tree builder on trunk. Once >>> we do that, we'll have the core of the HTML5 parsing algorithm turned >>> on, including SVG-in-HTML. There are still a bunch of details left to >>> finish (such as fragment parsing, MathML entities, and better error >>> reporting), but this marks a significant milestone for this work. >>> >>> The tree builder is markedly more complicated than the tokenizer, and >>> I'm sure we're going to have some bad regressions. I'd like to ask >>> your patience and your help to spot and triage these regressions. >>> We've gotten about as much mileage as we can out of the HTML5lib test >>> suite and the LayoutTests. The next step for is to see how the >>> algorithm works in the real world. >>> >>> There are about 84 tests that will require new expectations, mostly >>> due to invisible differences in render tree dumps (e.g., one more or >>> fewer 0x0 render text). In about half the cases, we've manually >>> verified that our new results agree with the Firefox nightly builds, >>> which is great from a compliance and interoperability point of view. >>> The other half involve things like the exact text for the <isindex>, >>> which we've chosen to match the spec exactly, or the <keygen> element, >>> which needs some shadow DOM love to hide its implementation details >>> from web content. >>> >>> As for performance, last time we ran our parser benchmark, the new >>> tree builder was 1% faster than the old tree builder. There's still a >>> bunch of low-hanging performance work we can do, such as atomizing >>> strings and inlining functions. If you're interested in performance, >>> let me or Eric know and we can point you in the right direction. >>> >>> I don't have an exact timeline for when we're going to throw the >>> switch, but sometime in the next few days. If you'd like us to hold >>> off for any reason, please let Eric or me know. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> P.S., you can follow along by CCing yourself on the master bug, >>> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41123>, or by looking at our >>> LayoutTest failure triage spreadsheet, >>> <https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlC4tS7Ao1fIdEo0SFdLaVpiclBHMVNQcHlTenV5TEE&hl=en>. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
