On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:36:46 AM UTC+11, Bobby Holley wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:26 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote:
> > >
> > > > And the next step would be to make
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:26 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote:
> >
> > > And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have
> > > MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-)
> > >
> >
> >
On 1/19/2017 3:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote:
> And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have
> MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-)
>
I actually tried this with all XPIDL methods. After adding several hundred
"Unused <<" annotations
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC+11, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote:
>
> > And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have
> > MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-)
> >
>
> I actually tried this with all XPIDL methods. After adding
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM, wrote:
> And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have
> MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-)
>
I actually tried this with all XPIDL methods. After adding several hundred
"Unused <<" annotations for calls that legitimately didn't need to check
th
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> What would actually be very helpful would be a way to selectively turn on
> checking of
> *all* return values in a given file/subdirectory. Is there some
> mechanism/plan for that?
>
Not that I know of, other than manually annotating them.
And the next step would be to make must-use the default, and have
MOZ_CAN_IGNORE for the rest. ;-)
Gerald (who is not volunteering!)
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:30:13 AM UTC+11, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> What would actually be very helpful would be a way to selectively turn on
> checking of
>
What would actually be very helpful would be a way to selectively turn on
checking of
*all* return values in a given file/subdirectory. Is there some
mechanism/plan for that?
Thanks,
-Ekr
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have two annotations that can be
Hi,
We have two annotations that can be used to prevent missing return value
checks:
- MOZ_MUST_USE for C++ functions where the return type indicates
success/failure, e.g. nsresult, bool (in some instances), and some other
types.
- [must_use] for IDL methods and properties where the nsresult val
Hooray! This change prevents a significant cause of crashes.
Nick
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> As of this morning the important guts of this work have landed to
> mozilla-central and should ride the Firefox 53 trains. Here are the
> technical details, for those in
As of this morning the important guts of this work have landed to
mozilla-central and should ride the Firefox 53 trains. Here are the
technical details, for those interested:
- The only XPCOM function intentionally exported from libxul is
XRE_GetBootstrap. This function may be called once t
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:58 AM, wrote:
> Hey,
>
> a bunch of questions:
>
> how will you handle synchronous scripting between that process and other
> frames from the same origin that aren't in that dedicated process?
>
If there are other toplevel windows within the loading window's unit of
rel
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 16:03, Dylan Hardison wrote:
>
> As a security precaution, we have turned on the setting "Require API key
> authentication for API requests" for everyone. If this has broken something,
> please contact us.
>
> Any service or program that uses cookies for authentication t
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:03:37PM -0500, Dylan Hardison wrote:
> As a security precaution, we have turned on the setting "Require API
> key authentication for API requests" for everyone. If this has broken
> something, please contact us.
Seems like this has broken the pushbot bugzilla integratio
This sounds like a good plan, Ben. IIUC, we're committing to support
all our ESRs for a year, so anything we can do to make uplifts easier
is sensible.
Till brings up a good point about folks on older platforms, but it's
likely they'll already have a degraded experience on many sites. I
expect fut
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Matthew N. wrote:
> Trees are the big thing that come to mind. I've heard about three non-XUL
> re-implementations (IIRC mostly in devtools) which sounds like a
> maintainability issue and potentially redundancy. I would rather keep using
> XUL trees than have eve
Hey,
a bunch of questions:
how will you handle synchronous scripting between that process and other frames
from the same origin that aren't in that dedicated process?
Will it be possible for an iframe to send this header? What will happen then?
What will happen if a site requests a large alloc
17 matches
Mail list logo
