Re: Switching to stdint types on mozilla-central

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:24:57AM +0100, Neil wrote: > Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > >PRIntn -> int32_t > >PRUintn -> uint32_t > > > http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mozilla/nsprpub/pr/include/prtypes.h#385 > > typedef int PRIntn; > typedef unsigned int PRUintn; What is it you're trying to

Re: Switching to stdint types on mozilla-central

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:03:04AM +0100, Neil wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > >On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:24:57AM +0100, Neil wrote: > > > >>Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >> > >>>PRIntn -> int32_t > >>>PRUintn -> uint32_t > >>

Re: Increase in mozilla-inbound bustage due to people not using Try

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 09:16:04PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 12-08-15 6:17 PM, William Lachance wrote: > >On 08/14/2012 03:47 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >>On 8/14/12 12:14 PM, Ed Morley wrote: > >>>On Thursday, 9 August 2012 15:35:28 UTC+1, Justin Lebar wrote: > Is there a plan to mitig

Re: Increase in mozilla-inbound bustage due to people not using Try

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:24:41PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 8/15/12 11:10 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >Something I noticed recently is that we spend more than 5 minutes (!) > >during windows clobber builds to do the clobber (rm -rf). All try builds > >are clobbers. A lot

Re: Increase in mozilla-inbound bustage due to people not using Try

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 09:18:11AM -0400, Ben Hearsum wrote: > On 08/16/12 02:10 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > But maybe we can work around this. At least for rm -rf, instead of > > rm -rf'ing before the build, we could move the objdir away so that a > > fresh new one is cr

Re: Moving Away from Makefile's

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:56:33PM +1200, Blair McBride wrote: > On 22/08/2012 11:36 a.m., Gregory Szorc wrote: > >I think Lua is perfect for this (it was invented to be a configuration > >language after all). But, I'm not sure it satisfies #1 nor #8. > > +1 for Lua - it seems perfect for this. Fo

Re: Moving Away from Makefile's

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:07:34AM +1200, Blair McBride wrote: > On 22/08/2012 5:58 p.m., Mike Hommey wrote: > >>+1 for Lua - it seems perfect for this. For #1, I find it far easier > >>>to read (and write) than Gyp, when it comes to things like > >>>conditio

Re: Gecko switched to use standard integer types

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:12:30PM -0700, Justin Lebar wrote: > bholley and I have a script for doing this in git. With thanks to > glandium for telling us how to do it: > > 0. Fetch the prtypes change, and merge it into your local master branch. > > 1. Let your git checkout be directory |src|.

Re: Moving Away from Makefile's

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:38:22PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 8/22/12 1:00 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote: > >On 08/22/12 12:43 PM, Jeff Hammel wrote: > >>If we do go with python, it would be nice to keep the configuration > >>files as much configuration as possible. The reason I question having > >>

Re: Moving Away from Makefile's

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:43:31AM -0400, Ben Hearsum wrote: > Yeah, I think I agree. My experience in RelEng has biased me strongly > towards not allowing even temporary hacks like that, because it's rare > that we ever remove them, and end up with a pile of very difficult to > maintain hacks (Tin

Re: The current state of Talos benchmarks

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:03:17PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > I don't believe that the current situation is acceptable, especially > with the recent focus on performance (through the Snappy project), > and I would like to ask people if they have any ideas on what we can > do to fix this. The fi

Re: Pymake enabled on Win32 builders

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 02:43:50PM -0400, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > On 9/1/2012 8:37 AM, Siddharth Agarwal wrote: > > > > > >GNU Make will still work for now, but we won't have tier 1 > >continuous integration for it (at least for Firefox — > >Thunderbird's still on GNU Make, but I’m hoping to swi

Re: I/O effect on builds [was Moving Away from Makefile's]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 01:59:29PM +0300, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > I re-ran some builds on my desktop with my instrumented build system that > > records system metrics and an SSD clobber build was only ~50s faster than > > the same build on a 7

Re: [FIXED] Re: Git mirror of mozilla-central down

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 08:41:19AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > OK, time for some good news. John Schoenick helped me yesterday on > IRC to understand what has caused this issue and how to fix it. I > tried that and it indeed fixed the problem. I'm currently in the > process of converting the r

Re: Adding hardware tokens to UA string

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:17:16PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > * App stores only want to deliver applications to devices which they > > know will run on the device. > > This would make sense in an Apple-esque walled garden with relativel

Re: Proposal to remove the function timer code

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:47:15PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 12-09-19 5:08 PM, Steve Fink wrote: > >On 09/19/2012 06:33 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >>On 12-09-19 1:01 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > >>>On Wednesday 2012-09-19 00:04 -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > A while ago (I think more than

Re: Proposal to remove the function timer code

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:26:06PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 12-09-20 1:54 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >>The sample labels will not provide instrumenting profiling. What > >>happens is that the sample labels build up a stack, and every time > >>that we pause t

Re: mach has landed

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:45:24AM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2012/9/28 Aryeh Gregor : > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >> I actually held out on you with the initial landing of mach: there is more > >> advanced tree building code in the pipes, complete with progress

Re: mach has landed

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:34:09PM +0200, Honza Bambas wrote: > On 9/28/2012 12:58 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:45:24AM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote: > >>2012/9/28 Aryeh Gregor : > >>>On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > &g

Re: mach has landed

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:45:00PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:34:09PM +0200, Honza Bambas wrote: > > On 9/28/2012 12:58 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > >On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:45:24AM -0400, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > >>2012/9/28 Aryeh Gregor

Re: try: -p all considered harmful?

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 10:53:36AM -0400, Chris AtLee wrote: > On 28/09/12 09:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >On 9/28/12 8:32 PM, Chris Pearce wrote: > >>This is indeed unfortunate. However I'd prefer to add more capacity to > >>our test infrastructure, rather than discourage developers from properl

Re: try: -p all considered harmful?

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 08:58:19AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote: > On Sat 29 Sep 2012 07:53:36 AM PDT, Chris AtLee wrote: > >One proposal that's been made elsewhere > >(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=791385) is to have a > >soft limit of one active push per developer on try. If you try and

Re: Extending jar.mn to support cross-module overrides

On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:01:02PM +0200, Axel Hecht wrote: > I've looked a bit deeper into the code, and there's unused > functionality that I'd like to rip out of JarMaker.py in favor of > this: > > Support for multiple jars in one go is one thing I'd love to axe. > I've probably added that thin

Re: Extending jar.mn to support cross-module overrides

On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:54:19PM +0200, Axel Hecht wrote: > On 03.10.12 14:33, Mike Hommey wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:01:02PM +0200, Axel Hecht wrote: > >>I've looked a bit deeper into the code, and there's unused > >>functionality that I'd

Re: Extending jar.mn to support cross-module overrides

On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:52:38PM +0200, Axel Hecht wrote: > On 03.10.12 15:41, Mike Hommey wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:54:19PM +0200, Axel Hecht wrote: > >>On 03.10.12 14:33, Mike Hommey wrote: > >>>On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:01:02PM +0200, Axel Hecht

Re: Removing make targets for running tests?

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:05:58PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for > running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there > (please write patches!). > > The build peers (or at least a few of us) really don't like the m

Re: Removing make targets for running tests?

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:10:37PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On 2012-10-08 3:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for > >running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there > >(please write patches!). > > > >The build peer

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

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 expect) don't run our builds, so it

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

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

Re: Imported code

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

Re: Imported code

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 do

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:28:43AM -0700, David Anderson wrote: > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:49:07 PM UTC-7, Brian Smith wrote: > > I think it is important to give Linux users the fastest browser we > > can give them, because: > > It's still unclear to me what our Linux PGO builds mean. Do >

Re: Benefits of PGO on Windows

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:55:57PM -0700, Dave Mandelin wrote: > Following the recent discussion about PGO, I really wanted to understand what > benefits PGO gives Firefox on Windows, if any--I was skeptical. Rafael (IIRC) > posted some Talos numbers, but I didn't know how to interpret them. So I

Re: Coding style change proposal: #pragma once

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:11:04PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On 10/29/12 5:52 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Nethercote >>wrote: > > > >>"#pragma once does have one drawback (other than being non-standard) > >>and that is if you have the same file in

Re: Proposal for reorganizing test directories

On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 11:40:56AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2012-11-02 12:12 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:33 PM, wrote: > >> > >>The tyranny of hierarchy never ends. Either we have subsidiarity for js and > >>other modules, or not. If "Gecko" is one big modu

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 03:47:32PM -0800, Alex Keybl wrote: > Bug 799295 [1], the driver for this thread, is still an open issue for > FF18 (shipping in 6 weeks). The JS team's recommendation remains to > disable PGO on Linux. According to Taras, the major benefits of PGO on > Linux are for a "star

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:22:22PM -0800, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2012-11-13 5:03 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: > >On 11/13/12 4:34 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > > >>But the point here is that unless we know for sure that we're dealing > >>with a compiler bug, disabling Linux PGO builds may just wallpa

Re: Integrating ICU into Mozilla build

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 02:48:06PM -0500, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > On 12/3/2012 2:32 PM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote: > >As part of implementing the ECMAScript Internationalization API [1, 2] in > >SpiderMonkey, and as an aid in internationalizing other functionality in > >Mozilla products [3], I

Re: Integrating ICU into Mozilla build

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:11:58PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 02:48:06PM -0500, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > > On 12/3/2012 2:32 PM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote: > > >As part of implementing the ECMAScript Internationalization API [1, 2] in > > >Spi

Re: Integrating ICU into Mozilla build

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 05:25:55PM -0500, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote: > > > > Actually, ICU has several options for how its data is packaged. One > > option is libraries (which are not sharable between architectures, > > AFAIK), but another possibility is to use data package (.dat) files, > >

Re: Integrating ICU into Mozilla build

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 07:51:21AM -0500, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: > Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote: > >> > >> Actually, ICU has several options for how its data is packaged. One option > >> is libraries (which are not sharable between architectures, AFAIK), but > >> another possibility is to

Re: Emacs and vim modelines

On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 07:49:22AM +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Nicholas Nethercote > wrote: > > > > But putting sts in would be > > reasonable for those that don't have |smarttab| set. > > So it sounds like the recommended mode lines should look like this:

Re: region of zeroes in Gecko address space

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:43:44AM +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > I need a big read-only buffer full of zeroes. On Linux I could mmap > /dev/zero read-only, and something similar on Windows/Mac I'm sure, but do > we already have code for that, or better yet something like that already > mapped i

Re: region of zeroes in Gecko address space

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:09:07AM -0500, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2013/1/14 Mike Hommey > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:43:44AM +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > > I need a big read-only buffer full of zeroes. On Linux I could mmap > > > /dev/zero read-only, a

Re: region of zeroes in Gecko address space

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28:19AM -0500, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2013/1/14 Mike Hommey > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:09:07AM -0500, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > 2013/1/14 Mike Hommey > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:43:44AM +1300, Robert O'C

Re: region of zeroes in Gecko address space

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:28:28AM +, Neil wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > >It just maps anonymous memory (for big enough sizes) > > > Note that "big enough" is pretty large, I think 4MB in jemalloc's > case. (I don't know whether roc needs that

Re: region of zeroes in Gecko address space

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 03:19:42PM +, Neil wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > >On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:28:28AM +, Neil wrote: > > > >>Mike Hommey wrote: > >> > >>>It just maps anonymous memory (for big enough sizes) > >>>

Re: mozilla-central/inbound closed -- we hit the Windows PGO memory limit

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:52:39AM +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > Exactly what control do we have over what gets PGOed? In particular: > > 1) Are we able to exclude particular object files or libraries from PGO > when we link libxul, reducing PGO memory usage for the final link? I think > you s

Re: mozilla-central/inbound closed -- we hit the Windows PGO memory limit

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:56:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:52:39AM +1300, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > Exactly what control do we have over what gets PGOed? In particular: > > > > 1) Are we able to exclude particular object files or libr

Re: mozilla-central/inbound closed -- we hit the Windows PGO memory limit

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:32:34PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Second status update: > > The numbers from disabling PGO on image, accessible and webrtc are in, and > the linker max vmem size is down by only ~200MB, which is quite > disappointing, especially since according to Randell, putting we

Re: mozilla-central/inbound closed -- we hit the Windows PGO memory limit

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:30:50PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:32:34PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > Second status update: > > > > The numbers from disabling PGO on image, accessible and webrtc are in, and > > the linker max vmem size is do

Re: mozilla-central/inbound closed -- we hit the Windows PGO memory limit

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 05:09:10PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2013-01-22 4:40 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Ehsan Akhgari >> wrote: > > > >But note that unless a given code path is examined throughout the > >profiling

New packaging code

Hi, I landed bug 780561, which replaced a bunch of awful Makefile goo around a perl script (and a few other things) with a quite well unittested python codebase. While it doesn't affect everyday development, and doesn't change the Firefox, Firefox for Android and B2G tinderbox builds much, there

Re: mozilla-central/inbound closed -- we hit the Windows PGO memory limit

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:38:05PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote: > On 2013-01-22 5:27 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > >FWIW, IIRC my experiments last time we had this problem, LTCG alone > >accounts for less than a third of the performance boost we get from > >PGO on Talos. > > Di

Re: Investigation undergoing on the future of PGO

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:32:58PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2013-01-28 3:38 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > >Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >>I have started an effort to gather some information on what options > >>we have with regard to using PGO on Windows in the longer term[.] > > > >>If you have ideas

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:49:01PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > The decrease is unfortunately not linear, as it seems like the big > memory eater is LTCG, and unfortunately we cannot opt out of that if > we want to do any PGO. Well, LTCG is only going to compile objects that have been compiled wi

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:07:39PM -0500, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > After consideration, I think we ought to just bite the bullet and > disable PGO. We have no other way to fix this issue. All other work we > can do simply pushes it down the road. As our recent history has shown, > we simply don't ha

Re: The future of PGO on Windows

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:59:36PM -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > MSVC supports __assume, which is similar but not quite the same. I'm very > skeptical that by simply using __assume we'll regain the benchmark hit > resulting from turning PGO off. __assume is not even close to similar, and it's act

Upcoming separation between resource://app and resource://gre

Hi, We're planning to land the final part of bug 755724 on monday, targetting tuesday's nightly as the first nightly with the separation done. This is the final step before being able to land Metro support on mozilla-central. This will only apply to Desktop Firefox, although other applications li

Re: Please upgrade to at least Mercurial 2.5.1

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:21:09AM -0500, Mike Habicher wrote: > On 13-02-21 08:41 AM, Justin Lebar wrote: > >>Can guidance be > >>provided as to where to get such things for commonly-run versions of Linux? > >It's also easy to install hg using pip or easy_install. You can get > >either of these t

<    2   3   4   5   6   7