Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Tim Taubert
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Boris Zbarsky
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Tim Taubert
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread David Anderson
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread David Anderson
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Neil
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

How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Paul Rouget
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Marcio Galli
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Paul Rouget
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Paul Rouget
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Paul Rouget
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Gervase Markham
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

Re: Xulrunner & UniversalXPConnect confusion

2012-10-11 Thread matthew . painter
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

Re: Xulrunner & UniversalXPConnect confusion

2012-10-11 Thread Scott Elcomb
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

Proposed W3C Charter: Web Fonts Working Group

2012-10-11 Thread L. David Baron
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

Proposed W3C Charter: Pointer Events Working Group

2012-10-11 Thread L. David Baron
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 Proposed Recommendation: Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML Configuration (Second Edition)

2012-10-11 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread David Anderson
> 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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Gary Kwong
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.

W3C Proposed Recommendation: WOFF File Format 1.0

2012-10-11 Thread L. David Baron
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Anthony Jones
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

Imported code

2012-10-11 Thread Randell Jesup
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Jonas Sicking
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread Marcio Galli
@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: >

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Zack Weinberg
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

Re: Imported code

2012-10-11 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Mike Hommey
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread David Anderson
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Dave Mandelin
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

Re: Imported code

2012-10-11 Thread Ted Mielczarek
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

Re: Imported code

2012-10-11 Thread Mike Hommey
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

2012-10-11 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: Imported code

2012-10-11 Thread Mike Hommey
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
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

Re: How to be notified when a node gets detached/reparented?

2012-10-11 Thread smaug
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

Re: Minimum Required Python Version

2012-10-11 Thread Gregory Szorc
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Bill McCloskey
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

Why we avoid making private modifications to NSPR and NSS (was Re: Imported code)

2012-10-11 Thread Brian Smith
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Brian Smith
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

Re: Why we avoid making private modifications to NSPR and NSS (was Re: Imported code)

2012-10-11 Thread Wan-Teh Chang
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

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Pointer Events Working Group

2012-10-11 Thread smaug
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

PRtypes [was Re: Why we avoid making private modifications to NSPR and NSS]

2012-10-11 Thread Joshua Cranmer
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

Re: Proposal: Remove Linux PGO Testing

2012-10-11 Thread Justin Lebar
> 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