> Or can the Rust code be called from multiple threads simultaneously
> without causing race issues?
AFAICT the Rust code doesn't change any state; it just parses an input to
provide a Url object (and vice versa). The Url object needs to be put in a
mutex if you wish to mutate it from multiple
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Valentin Gosu wrote:
> On 6 May 2015 at 04:58, Doug Turner wrote:
>> > On May 5, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Valentin Gosu
>> > wrote:
>> >> As some of you may know, Rust is approaching its 1.0 release in a
>
On 01/05/15 00:42, Jet Villegas wrote:
I wonder why we'd allow *any* parsing differences here?
If we're also signing up to increase spec compliance as part of the
rewrite, that should be called out as an explicit goal
rust-url (https://github.com/servo/rust-url/) was originally written per
On 5/6/15 4:28 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Not sure that's part of the benchmarks, but creating a file:// or
chrome:// URI currently causes main thread I/O (bug 890712, iirc).
My measurements were on http:// URIs. And yes, others are even slower
because of the protocol handler details
Not sure that's part of the benchmarks, but creating a file:// or
chrome:// URI currently causes main thread I/O (bug 890712, iirc).
That's certainly a big cause of slowdown.
Cheers,
David
On 06/05/15 04:07, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/5/15 9:58 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>> Performance.
>
> Note t
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Valentin Gosu
wrote:
> On 6 May 2015 at 04:58, Doug Turner wrote:
>
> >
> > > On May 5, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Valentin Gosu <
> valentin.g...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> As some of you may know, Rus
On 5/5/15 9:58 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
Performance.
Note that performance has been a recurring problem in our current URI
code. It's a bit (10%) slower than Chrome's, but about 2x slower than
Safari's, and shows up a good bit in profiles. Some of this may be due
to XPCOM strings, of course,
On 6 May 2015 at 04:58, Doug Turner wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Valentin Gosu
> wrote:
> >> As some of you may know, Rust is approaching its 1.0 release in a
> couple of
> >> weeks. One of the major goals for Rust is us
> On May 5, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Valentin Gosu
> wrote:
>> As some of you may know, Rust is approaching its 1.0 release in a couple of
>> weeks. One of the major goals for Rust is using a rust library in Gecko.
>> The specific one I'm wor
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Valentin Gosu wrote:
> As some of you may know, Rust is approaching its 1.0 release in a couple of
> weeks. One of the major goals for Rust is using a rust library in Gecko.
> The specific one I'm working at the moment is adding rust-url as a safer
> alternative to
Thank you all for your suggestions. Asserting on differences sounds good,
and I think we can annotate the crash report with a sanitized URL as well
(replace all of the alfanumerical characters with x?). Also running a
crawler on top250 should iron out most kinks.
The plan is to land this preffed o
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Valentin Gosu
wrote:
> As some of you may know, Rust is approaching its 1.0 release in a couple of
> weeks. One of the major goals for Rust is using a rust library in Gecko.
> The specific one I'm working at the moment is adding rust-url as a safer
> alternative t
On 01/05/15 18:39, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/1/15 12:41 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
I think the plan was to improve security and dogfood rust. If we're also
signing up to increase spec compliance as part of the rewrite, that
should
be called out as an explicit goal--with a plan for dealing with
non-
On 5/1/15 12:41 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
I think the plan was to improve security and dogfood rust. If we're also
signing up to increase spec compliance as part of the rewrite, that should
be called out as an explicit goal--with a plan for dealing with
non-compliant sites.
And outright spec bugs
I think the plan was to improve security and dogfood rust. If we're also
signing up to increase spec compliance as part of the rewrite, that should
be called out as an explicit goal--with a plan for dealing with
non-compliant sites.
--Jet
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:33 AM, James Graham wrote:
> On
On 30/04/15 23:42, Jet Villegas wrote:
I wonder why we'd allow *any* parsing differences here? Couldn't you just
assert and fail hard while you're testing against our tests and in Nightly?
I imagine the differences you don't catch this way will be so subtle that
crowd-sourcing is unlikely to catc
On 04/30/2015 04:08 PM, Chris Hofmann wrote:
check to see if we still have any automated crawlers still running that
could go looking for problems.
give the the folks that run the crawlers an instrumented build, and strong
liquor for best results.
-chofmann
I run a system called Bughunter tha
check to see if we still have any automated crawlers still running that
could go looking for problems.
give the the folks that run the crawlers an instrumented build, and strong
liquor for best results.
-chofmann
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Jason Duell wrote:
> +1 to asserting during test
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 04:00:33PM -0700, Jason Duell wrote:
> +1 to asserting during tests. I'd feel better about doing it on nightly too
> if there were a way to include the offending URI in the crash report. But
> I'm guessing there's not?
CrashReporter::AnnotateCrashReport, but as Valentin sa
URLs are a user decision to submit.
Kevin
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Jason Duell wrote:
> +1 to asserting during tests. I'd feel better about doing it on nightly too
> if there were a way to include the offending URI in the crash report. But
> I'm guessing there's not?
>
> On Thu, Apr 30
+1 to asserting during tests. I'd feel better about doing it on nightly too
if there were a way to include the offending URI in the crash report. But
I'm guessing there's not?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> I wonder why we'd allow *any* parsing differences here? Couldn't
I wonder why we'd allow *any* parsing differences here? Couldn't you just
assert and fail hard while you're testing against our tests and in Nightly?
I imagine the differences you don't catch this way will be so subtle that
crowd-sourcing is unlikely to catch them either.
--Jet
On Thu, Apr 30, 20
As some of you may know, Rust is approaching its 1.0 release in a couple of
weeks. One of the major goals for Rust is using a rust library in Gecko.
The specific one I'm working at the moment is adding rust-url as a safer
alternative to nsStandardURL.
This project is still in its infancy, but we'r
23 matches
Mail list logo
