Re: Frame Pointer Omission Unconditionally Disabled on Win32

2017-01-12 Thread Aaron Klotz
This is fantastic news! I hope this sticks! On 1/12/2017 2:12 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: As of landing bug 1322735 [1], we now unconditionally disable frame pointer omission (FPO) on all win32 builds. FPO was already disabled on nightly/aurora builds as a side-effect of having profiling enabled, but w

Frame Pointer Omission Unconditionally Disabled on Win32

2017-01-12 Thread Eric Rahm
As of landing bug 1322735 [1], we now unconditionally disable frame pointer omission (FPO) on all win32 builds. FPO was already disabled on nightly/aurora builds as a side-effect of having profiling enabled, but will now be disabled in beta (and release eventually) after the next uplift. Please no

Re: [dev-servo] Intent to vendor Servo in mozilla-central

2017-01-12 Thread Bobby Holley
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Ted Mielczarek > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 06:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> Does that mean that crates under third_party/rust/ are going to have > >> their entire histories imported in the futu

Re: forward declarations vs includes

2017-01-12 Thread Gabriele Svelto
On 12/01/2017 09:05, Mike Hommey wrote: > +1 > > The sad part is that it's not followed enough. The include hell [1] bug hasn't seem some action in a while. We might set some time aside to do a bit of cleanup on the most commonly used headers. I remember that the last time we did a significant pu

Re: forward declarations vs includes

2017-01-12 Thread Mike Hommey
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 02:42:52AM -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 1/12/17 2:30 AM, gsquel...@mozilla.com wrote: > > This way all users of SomeClass only need to include SomeClass.h, not > > SomeType.h, when they want to call SomeClass::foo. > > They don't need to have SomeType.h included merely