Re: Some of the Phabricator review requests don't show up in Bugzilla dashboard

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 04:53:22PM +0300, smaug wrote: > Hi all, > > I think it is good to let people know that some of the review requests in > Phabricator don't show up in Bugzilla. > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1482110 > > > > So, if some review seems to take too much time,

Changes in XPCOM string encoding conversions

I've made changes to encoding conversions between XPCOM strings. Here are the important bits of info: * The conversions are now generally faster, so processing text as UTF-8 should be considered more appropriate than before even if there exists a case where the data needs to be passed to a UTF-16

Re: mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:28:26PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:39 AM Nicholas Nethercote wrote: Bug 1477627 converted a hot hash table from PLDHashTable to mozilla::HashSet and appears to have sped up cycle collection in some cases by 7%. If you know of another PLDHash

Re: mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 01:18:23PM -0700, Jeff Gilbert wrote: What are the pros/cons to mozilla::Hash{Map,Set} vs std::unordered_{map,set}? I'm assuming perf is the main draw? Do we have a data on this too? According to our benchmarks, mozilla::HashMap is much faster than std::unordered_map. B

Re: Intent to Ship: Shadow DOM and Custom Elements

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, smaug wrote: > On 08/15/2018 01:54 PM, smaug wrote: > > On 08/14/2018 09:43 PM, darin wrote: > >> When it ships in version 63 will shadowdom and webcomponent be shipped > >> disabled or enabled by default? The beta is throwing me off. > >> > >> Th

Re: mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

This is great work, thanks a lot, Nick! On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:39 AM Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Bug 1477627 converted a hot hash table from PLDHashTable to > mozilla::HashSet and appears to have sped up cycle collection in some cases > by 7%. If you know of another PLDHashTable that is hot,

Re: mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > Do you have any good suggestions of how to find such candidates? One > thing that came to my mind was that the BHR data may be a useful source of > insight for this... category=all&durationSpec=512_2048&in

Re: mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

Off the top of my head, the advantages of mozilla::Hash{Map,Set} over std::unordered_{map,set} are the following. - They are much faster on Mac and Linux and not much different on Windows: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/graphs?timerange=604800&series= mozilla-central,1732084,1,6&series

Re: mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

Awesome! What are the pros/cons to mozilla::Hash{Map,Set} vs std::unordered_{map,set}? I'm assuming perf is the main draw? Do we have a data on this too? On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Hi, > > I recently moved Spidermonkey's js::Hash{Map,Set} classes from > js/pub

Re: Intent to Ship: Shadow DOM and Custom Elements

On 2018-08-15 9:04 AM, smaug wrote: Why does https://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdomv1 show Firefox 63 show not supported by default? No idea. I don't know who maintains caniuse and when the they update it. Please report to them that they may want to update the page. The caniuse data is m

Re: Intent to Ship: Shadow DOM and Custom Elements

On 08/15/2018 06:06 PM, darin.hens...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, smaug wrote: On 08/15/2018 01:54 PM, smaug wrote: On 08/14/2018 09:43 PM, darin wrote: When it ships in version 63 will shadowdom and webcomponent be shipped disabled or enabled by defaul

Some of the Phabricator review requests don't show up in Bugzilla dashboard

Hi all, I think it is good to let people know that some of the review requests in Phabricator don't show up in Bugzilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1482110 So, if some review seems to take too much time, better to ping the requestee. -Olli

Re: Intent to ship '-webkit-appearance' and changes to '-moz-appearance' values

On 8/14/18 12:52 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote: On 08/08/2018 21:08, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Are we writing down something that could get turned into a spec? I've got a bunch of messy notes that I hope will be of some use for that, but no, so far I have not attempted to create draft spec text to replac

Re: Intent to Ship: Shadow DOM and Custom Elements

When it ships in version 63 will shadowdom and webcomponent be shipped disabled or enabled by default? The beta is throwing me off. Thank you, -Darin ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-pl

Re: Is there an e10s plan for multiple content processes?

เมื่อ วันอังคารที่ 5 พฤษภาคม ค.ศ. 2015 5 นาฬิกา 29 นาที 54 วินาที UTC+7, Leman Bennett (Omega X) เขียนว่า: > Inquiring minds would like to know. > > At the moment, e10s tabs is still somewhat slower than non-e10s. > Multiple content processes would go a long way for more responsive > navigation

Re: Intent to ship '-webkit-appearance' and changes to '-moz-appearance' values

Regarding criteria for letting -webkit-appearance ride the trains, I assume you're wondering about that due to my use of EARLY_BETA_OR_EARLIER to flip the pref. That was mostly because Mats has been away on summer vacation and I suspect that he'll want to have input on whether this is ready to ship

Re: Intent to ship '-webkit-appearance' and changes to '-moz-appearance' values

The plan to ship -webkit-appearance looks good to me, fwiw. On 8/14/18 12:46 AM, Jonathan Watt wrote: > On 08/08/2018 16:31, Mike Taylor wrote: >> On 8/7/18 5:16 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote: >>> Spec: None. We're reverse engineering Chrome and ignoring >>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4/#a

Re: Intent to Ship: Shadow DOM and Custom Elements

On 08/13/2018 12:25 PM, David Burns wrote: Do we have sufficient tests There are some tests, but as always, not enough. And there are areas which are not spec'ed, like dir-attribute handling on HTML elements with Shadow DOM and session history of iframes which are in shadow DOM. for this to

Re: Intent to Ship: Shadow DOM and Custom Elements

I, for one, would like to say: "Huzzah!" On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:54 PM, wrote: > On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 5:49:31 PM UTC+3, smaug wrote: > > I'm planning to keep Shadow DOM and Custom Elements turned on on > beta/release builds. > > Target release is Firefox 63. > > prefs are dom.webcompo

devs: please install NodeJS; it will be required by default on Thurs, Aug 17th

This Thursday, August 17th, we’ll be turning on —enable-nodejs in the mozilla-central build system by default. This means that, for developers who haven't yet run `mach bootstrap --no-system-changes`, the build may stop working until that happens. For those on Mac, Windows, and many recent ve

Re: Intent to ship '-webkit-appearance' and changes to '-moz-appearance' values

On 08/08/2018 21:08, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 8/7/18 6:16 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote: >> Spec: None. We're reverse engineering Chrome and ignoring >>https://drafts.csswg.org/css-ui-4/#appearance-switching >>since the 'appearance' property defined there is not >>web compatible.

mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}

Hi, I recently moved Spidermonkey's js::Hash{Map,Set} classes from js/public/HashTable.h into mfbt/HashTable.h and renamed them as mozilla::Hash{Map,Set}. They can now be used throughout Gecko. (js/public/HashTable.h still exists in order to provide renamings of mozilla::Hash{Map,Set} as js::Hash

devs: please install NodeJS; it will be required by default on Thurs, Aug 17th

This Thursday, August 17th, we’ll be turning on —enable-nodejs in the mozilla-central build system by default. This means that, for developers who haven't yet run `mach bootstrap --no-system-changes`, the build may stop working until that happens. For those on Mac, Windows, and many recent versio

Re: Intent to ship '-webkit-appearance' and changes to '-moz-appearance' values

Hi Mike, On 08/08/2018 16:31, Mike Taylor wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > On 8/7/18 5:16 PM, Jonathan Watt wrote: >> Summary >> --- >> >> I plan to enable the pref in Nightly builds (using EARLY_BETA_OR_EARLIER) to >> turn on the '-webkit-appearance' alias for '-moz-appearance'. This pref >> simult

PSA: cbindgen will be required to build in the near future.

Hi, In bug 1478813 (now on inbound), I've added a new toolchain job and code to install cbindgen[1] via `mach bootstrap`, and it will become a hard build dependency in the near future. We use it on the style system to generate C++ structs / enums from the Rust definitions (as opposed to bind