Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

We intend to enable the ECMAScript 2017 APIs *SharedArrayBuffer* and *Atomics* by default in Firefox. The target release is* Firefox 55*, which is set to ship on* 8 August, 2017*. The feature has been developed behind the *javascript.options.shared_memory* flag. The feature is also in Safari (v

Re: Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > We do think there are > architectural improvements that hardware manufacturers, operating systems, > and browsers can make [19], and we intend to investigate them. I think that the work you cite is promising. However, listening to this presen

Re: Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > > We do think there are > > architectural improvements that hardware manufacturers, operating > systems, > > and browsers can make [19], and we intend to investigate them. > > I think

Re: Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Lars Hansen > wrote: > > > We do think there are > > > architectural improvements that hardware manufacturers, operating > > systems, > > > and br

Re: Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> >> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Lars Hansen >> wrote: >> > > We do think there are >> > > architectural improvements

Nightly updates disabled for bug 1364059

We've disabled updates for a bad crash: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1364059 We're working on backing out the offending patches and will re-spin nightly builds shortly. Cheers, Chris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozil

Re: Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

On 05/11/2017 09:09 AM, Lars Hansen wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: We do think there are archite

Re: Switching to async/await from Task.jsm/yield

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: > lets go ahead with this and avoid using Task.jsm in the future. Patches to remove Task.jsm usage from browser/ and toolkit/ are now available in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353542 along with the scripts that generated them

Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

Hi! As of 2017-05-15 I intend to turn on throttling of background tracking timeouts by default. It has been developed behind the dom.timeout.tracking_throttling_delay pref. Other relevant prefs are: dom.min_tracking_timeout_value, dom.min_tracking_background_timeout_value, privacy.trackingprotect

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

Do you have a risk assessment and/or test plan for this feature? This feels like something that is both quite important and quite risky and I'd love to understand more about how you plan to test/validate this kind of feature. --BDS On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andreas Farre wrote: > Hi! >

Re: Intent to ship: SharedArrayBuffer and Atomics

Great writeup Lars! It's been a pleasure working with you on this. I just wanted to note that we've finalized the set of Web GL APIs which accept shared memory, and that's been deployed into the latest spec, via the pull request https://github.com/KhronosGroup/WebGL/pull/2387. You can see the re

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

We've had help from QA testing this feature during the development, and there is a test plan for the feature[1]. The delay before starting throttling is something that was introduced to lower risk, and was verified with the test plan. We've also introduced telemetry measurements that we intend to

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

On 5/11/17 10:59 AM, Andreas Farre wrote: As of 2017-05-15 I intend to turn on throttling of background tracking timeouts by default. For purposes of this feature, what is the definition of "tracking timeout"? -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

Timeouts classified using privacy.trackingprotection.annotate_channels as coming from a tracking script. On 11 May 2017 7:05 pm, "Boris Zbarsky" wrote: > On 5/11/17 10:59 AM, Andreas Farre wrote: > >> As of 2017-05-15 I intend to turn on throttling of background tracking >> timeouts by default.

Re: Nightly updates disabled for bug 1364059

Updates are enabled again for all platforms. Not all locales have finished yet, they will receive updates once the repacks finish. On 11 May 2017 at 09:30, Chris AtLee wrote: > We've disabled updates for a bad crash: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ > show_bug.cgi?id=1364059 > > We're working on ba

Re: new configure option: --enable-debug-rust

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > With these options, you get a browser that runs quickly (i.e. no DEBUG > assertions in C++ code), but still lets you debug the Rust code you > might be working on, ideally with faster compile times than you might > get otherwise. --enable-de

Re: Is Big5 form submission fast enough?

On Thu, May 11, 2017, at 01:43 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > In Firefox 43, I rewrote our Big5 support and, among other things, I > optimized the *encoder* for footprint rather than speed on the theory > that users won't notice anyway since the encoder run is followed by a > dominating wait for the ne

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

So part of private browsing and not a developer-facing feature, then? Eric Shepherd Senior Technical Writer Mozilla Developer Network Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/sheppy > On May 11, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Andreas Farre wrote: > > T

Have you run 'mach bootstrap' lately?

If you set up your build environment with 'mach bootstrap' but haven't run it recently, consider taking a few minutes now to run it again. Running 'mach bootstrap' from time to time will keep your environment up to date and (more-or-less) in sync with your colleagues'. This seems to be especially

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

On 5/11/17 10:30 PM, Eric Shepherd (Sheppy) wrote: So part of private browsing and not a developer-facing feature, then? No, as I understand this is being applied across the board, not just in private browsing, and not just if tracking protection is generally enabled. -Boris

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/11/17 10:30 PM, Eric Shepherd (Sheppy) wrote: > >> So part of private browsing and not a developer-facing feature, then? >> > > No, as I understand this is being applied across the board, not just in > private browsing, and not just if

Quantum Flow Engineering Newsletter #9

Hi everyone, It's been 10 weeks since I have started writing these newsletters (the number in the title isn't an off by one error, there was a one week hiatus due to a work week!). We still have quite a bit of work ahead of us, but we have also accomplished a good amount. Finding a good metric f

Re: Intent to Ship throttling of tracking timeouts

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Bill McCloskey wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > On 5/11/17 10:30 PM, Eric Shepherd (Sheppy) wrote: > > > >> So part of private browsing and not a developer-facing feature, then? > >> > > > > No, as I understand this is being a