We discontinued it because we had a ton of files
forked and it was getting to be a lot of work to maintain.
PROS
-Can more easily identify v8 layout test failures
-Can ensure that all the USE(JSC) blocks are actually about the JS
engine instead of just Chromium/Safari-specific
code.
-Good for identifying areas where our JS engine integration is doing
something stupid performance wise (e.g. differences in benchmark performance
between the Chrome JSC build and the Safari build).
CONS
-It will still be a lot of work to maintain despite the energy it saves with
layout tests and performance. Although, the only thing I can think of that
we'd need to maintain would be the JSC.gyp file and the Chrome-JSC builder.
That doesn't sound *too* bad, unless I'm missing something major.
In short, I say, go for it.
Ojan
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Mike Pinkerton <pinker...@chromium.org>wrote:
>
> IIRC from the Mac porting effort (a year ago now), the JSC build
> relies significantly on objective-C dom bindings which we neither want
> to use nor are easy to get working in our build system. We jettisoned
> them for a reason and my guess is that it would be a non-trivial
> effort to re-instate them (if at all, things were pretty scary
> before).
>
> Not trying to shirk work or responsibility, just pointing out there be
> dragons there and my +2 Sword of Build Wrangling is in the shop for
> repair.
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Dimitri Glazkov<dglaz...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Team,
> >
> > Now that we're unforked, we want to concentrate on eliminating layout
> > test failures. Through the magic of the WebKit merge, we've
> > accumulated quite a few. Today, we expect around 400 failures, which
> > is not a good number by any stretch.
> >
> > As one of the ways to help determine the source of the failures, I
> > propose that we resurrect the JSC build (and builder), so that we can
> > say with a fair degree of certainty if the cause is in the V8
> > bindings.
> >
> > Those of you who were involved in maintaining a JSC build of Chromium
> > before may experience painful flashbacks and shortness of breath. My
> > hope is that this time around we should have easier time, since we're
> > unforked and the Script* abstractions are pretty well-defined to keep
> > most of the nasties at bay. Additionally, having gyp is certainly a
> > super-great help.
> >
> > Based on the IM/hallway conversation, Dave Levin, Dmitry Titov, myself
> > and possibly a few others might be interested in helping out with the
> > project. We don't want this to be more than a 10% effort on our parts.
> > Since we hope to have a JSC build bot and ideally a canary bot, we may
> > need some help from the infrastructure gods.
> >
> > So, do you think that resurrecting the JSC build is a:
> >
> > a) terrible idea
> > b) great idea
> > c) whatcha talking bout, Willis?
> >
> > :DG<
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Pinkerton
> Mac Weenie
> pinker...@google.com
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
