> 2. Linux is the foundation of B2G and Firefox for Android, where we
> *definitely* must deliver
> the fastest product we can
I totally agree, but it's not clear to me whether continuing to do PGO
on desktop Linux has any effect on our ability to potentially do PGO
on Android/B2G. If we were to
On 10/11/2012 7:52 PM, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
NSPR public functions need to stay backward compatible. This means the
prototypes of public functions and the definitions of public types
cannot change. (There are exceptions, if done carefully.) Bugs in
function behavior can certainly be fixed. Wan-T
On 10/11/2012 07:55 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C is proposing a charter for a new Pointer Events
Working Group. For more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0017.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/charter-proposed.html
Mozilla has the opport
Ehsan wrote:
> It is entirely unreasonable to render ourselves unable to modify
> our imported code (just look at the current situation with NSPR
> which causes developers to go through huge pain in order to work
> around things which would be very simply dealt with if only we
> had the option of f
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Link-time optimization is described as an experimental new feature in
> the GCC 4.5.0 release notes[1]. The 4.6.0 release notes[2] say that
> it has now "stabilized to the point of being usable", and the 4.7.0
> release notes[3] describe it as still further improved both in
Randell quoted:
> Ehsan wrote:
> >It is entirely unreasonable to render ourselves unable to modify
> >our imported code (just look at the current situation with NSPR
> >which causes developers to go through huge pain in order to work
> > around things which would be very simply dealt with if only w
On 10/11/2012 03:49 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Don't both of these proposals map to tons of manual work? I'm not
convinced that doing either of those would necessarily be easier than
finding and fixing the PGO bug at hand.
The problem is that fixing this one bug might take only a few days, but
The general consensus seems to be "2.7 is good," so I filed
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=800614 to have configure
enforce Python 2.6 as the minimum required to *build* the tree. Note
that building is different from running tests (some test runners still
run on Python 2.5 and Tal
On 10/11/2012 02:40 PM, Paul Rouget wrote:
Context: in the firefox devtools, we need to track some nodes and update
different "views" based on what's happening to this node (show its parents,
show its child, show its attributes, …).
The new Mutation observers are very helpful. But there's one th
On 2012-10-11 4:34 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:26:33PM -0400, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
On 10/11/2012 02:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 05:57:53PM -0400, Justin Lebar wrote:
By "turning off Linux PGO testing", you really mean "stop making and
dis
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:38:57PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2012-10-11 6:36 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:14:51PM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> >>On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> >>wrote:
> >>>What I really don't want us to do is to prohibit people
On 2012-10-11 6:36 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:14:51PM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
What I really don't want us to do is to prohibit people from fixing things
in the imported code. That is the absolute worst situation
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 06:14:51PM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> wrote:
> > What I really don't want us to do is to prohibit people from fixing things
> > in the imported code. That is the absolute worst situation we can face with
> > a given pie
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> What I really don't want us to do is to prohibit people from fixing things
> in the imported code. That is the absolute worst situation we can face with
> a given piece of code, as we already have learned painfully.
This should absolutely b
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:33:31 PM UTC-7, Mike Hommey wrote:
> That being said, PGO on Linux is between 5 and 20% improvement on our
> various talos tests. That's with the version of gcc we currently use,
> which is 4.5. I'd expect 4.7 to do a better job even, especially if we
> added lto t
These Dromaeo improvements will in part be because IonMonkey is not fully
JIT'ing these paths yet (a regression we're tracking from Firefox 17).
-David
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:26:49 AM UTC-7, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 02:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > On Wed, O
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:26:33PM -0400, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 02:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 05:57:53PM -0400, Justin Lebar wrote:
> >>By "turning off Linux PGO testing", you really mean "stop making and
> >>distributing Linux PGO builds," right
On 2012-10-11 3:16 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
In Bug 794510, ehsan said in response to me:
Isaac makes a good point; we should clearly mark imported code, both for our
own purposes and for scripts. Biesi and I were commiserating about the lack of
a standard for this ("third_party/blah" such as n
On 2012-10-11 3:12 PM, Anthony Jones wrote:
On 11/10/12 19:33, Mike Hommey wrote:
That being said, PGO on Linux is between 5 and 20% improvement on our
various talos tests. That's with the version of gcc we currently use,
which is 4.5. I'd expect 4.7 to do a better job even, especially if we
add
@Paul,
What is your use case BTW? when you say "update views" based on mutations,
is the goal is to let the user know what is going on? Or you actually
performing other mutations back to the DOM or logging things or creating
reports?
m
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Paul Rouget wrote:
> Paul Rouget wrote:
>> Context: in the firefox devtools, we need to track some nodes and update
>> different "views" based on what's happening to this node (show its parents,
>> show its child, show its attributes, …).
>>
>> The new Mutation obs
In Bug 794510, ehsan said in response to me:
>> Isaac makes a good point; we should clearly mark imported code, both for our
>> own purposes and for scripts. Biesi and I were commiserating about the lack
>> of
>> a standard for this ("third_party/blah" such as netwerk/third_party/sctp
>> instead
On 11/10/12 19:33, Mike Hommey wrote:
> That being said, PGO on Linux is between 5 and 20% improvement on our
> various talos tests. That's with the version of gcc we currently use,
> which is 4.5. I'd expect 4.7 to do a better job even, especially if we
> added lto to the equation (and since we ar
W3C recently published the following Proposed Recommendation (the
final stage in the W3C process before Recommendation)
WOFF File Format 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-WOFF-20121011/
Mozilla's Jonathan Kew is one of the authors of this specification.
If there are comments you
I filed bug 800471 for considering using Clang on Linux.
-Gary
This also suggests another option: using clang on linux too. This would
have the added benefit of using the same compiler for OS X and Linux,
which would remove most of the argument of developers spending time on
linux only issues.
On 10/11/2012 02:33 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 05:57:53PM -0400, Justin Lebar wrote:
By "turning off Linux PGO testing", you really mean "stop making and
distributing Linux PGO builds," right?
The main reason I'd want Linux PGO is for mobile. On desktop Linux,
most users (I
> 5-20%, if it were a general slowdown, is _huge_. We have people who work
>
> for months to get speedups of 1 or 2%.
Yes, I know, that is pretty much all I do at Mozilla ;) I don't think scattered
Talos wins of 5-20% are so valuable and important that we should keep
sacrificing developer time
W3C recently published the following Proposed Edited Recommendation
Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML Configuration
(Second Edition)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PER-widgets-20120925/
If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the
review, or if you think Mozi
W3C is proposing a charter for a new Pointer Events
Working Group. For more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0017.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/charter/charter-proposed.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Thu
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Fonts Working Group.
For more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0016.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/WebFonts/draft-charter-ac.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Monday, Octob
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Could you expand on your hack? I'm in a similar situation here :)
In the end we opted to get the filepath via a Java dialog but here's the gist:
In user.js (same folder as the prefs.js file) I added the following:lines:
user_pref("sign
Hi Scott,
Could you expand on your hack? I'm in a similar situation here :)
Thanks!
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 11/10/12 08:54, David Anderson wrote:
Keep in mind that debug builds are probably at least an order of
magnitude slower (or a large factor), whereas PGO is a very small
factor. (After all, we do not PGO on Mac and it doesn't seem to be a
problem.)
5-20%, if it were a general slowdown, is _hu
Paul Rouget wrote:
> Context: in the firefox devtools, we need to track some nodes and update
> different "views" based on what's happening to this node (show its parents,
> show its child, show its attributes, …).
>
> The new Mutation observers are very helpful. But there's one thing I am not
> r
Paul Rouget wrote:
> Marcio Galli wrote:
> > Hi Paul, so this means we do not have anymore DOMnodeRemoved from the
> > mutation events?
>
> There's no "DOMNodeRemoved" type:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/MutationObserver#MutationObserverInit
>
> But there's a "removedNodes" from
Marcio Galli wrote:
> Hi Paul, so this means we do not have anymore DOMnodeRemoved from the
> mutation events?
There's no "DOMNodeRemoved" type:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/MutationObserver#MutationObserverInit
But there's a "removedNodes" from the mutation record. Maybe this arr
Hi Paul, so this means we do not have anymore DOMnodeRemoved from the
mutation events?
I find your use case sort of important specially now that I believe
pages will suffer more changes based in template operations in the
client. So "detecting context" is key for client apps to know where
they wer
Context: in the firefox devtools, we need to track some nodes and update
different "views" based on what's happening to this node (show its parents,
show its child, show its attributes, …).
The new Mutation observers are very helpful. But there's one thing I am not
really sure how to handle correc
Tim Taubert wrote:
Nobody likes running debug builds because they're slower
I always run debug builds. What does that make me? ;-)
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.moz
Keep in mind that debug builds are probably at least an order of magnitude
slower (or a large factor), whereas PGO is a very small factor. (After all, we
do not PGO on Mac and it doesn't seem to be a problem.)
-David
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:05:35 AM UTC-7, Tim Taubert wrote:
> On 10/10
Right, exactly. I am arguing that testing PGO, which is a buggy optimization
pass, incurs too much developer cost to justify a "5-20%" talos improvement on
select benchmarks. On Linux, which is a very small percentage of our market
share, and where distributions make their own builds anyway.
Wh
On 10/11/2012 09:32 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> The suggestion, as far as I can tell, is to drop Linux PGO completely.
> We woudln't have it in nightly, Aurora, Beta, or releases. Compiling
> with PGO on Linux would be an unsupported configuration that we'd
> probably advise distros against, becaus
On 10/11/12 3:05 AM, Tim Taubert wrote:
Also, I'm not sure how this affects Telemetry results. In terms of perf
measurements we'd probably need to completely ignore everything from
non-release builds as the results might differ heavily for some use
cases.
I'm not following.
The suggestion, as
On 10/10/2012 11:57 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
> The main reason I'd want Linux PGO is for mobile. On desktop Linux,
> most users (I expect) don't run our builds, so it's not a big deal if
> they're some percent slower. (Unless distros commonly do PGO builds
> of Firefox?) But we're not doing mobil
44 matches
Mail list logo
