Re: Request Feedback - Submitting Canvas Frames, WebVR Compositor

2016-05-19 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
This looks good to me in general -- for Gecko, this combined with offscreen canvas and canvas/webgl in workers is going to be the best way to get performant WebGL-based VR. This is likely going to be the better way to solve the custom-vsync for VR issue; while the large patch queue that I have doe

landing soon: core APIs for VR

2014-11-19 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
Hi all, We've had a lot of excitement around our VR efforts and the MozVR site, and we want to capitalize on this momentum. Very soon, I'll be landing the early support code for VR in mozilla-central, pref'd off by default. This includes adding the core VR interfaces, display item and layers

Re: Getting rid of already_AddRefed?

2014-08-12 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:22:05 AM UTC-4, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > For refcounted types, isn't a raw pointer in a local variable a red > flag to reviewers to begin with? If GetT() returns a raw pointer > today, like nsINode::GetFirstChild() or something, storing the result > in a raw pointer is

PSA: Windows builds will default to XPCOM_DEBUG_BREAK=warn

2014-08-12 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
I'm about to land bug 1046222, which changes the default behaviour of XPCOM_DEBUG_BREAK on Windows to "warn", instead of "trap". If run under the debugger, "trap" will cause the debugger to stop as if it hit a breakpoint in debug builds. This would be useful behaviour if we didn't still have a

Re: OMTC on Windows

2014-05-28 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
(Note: I have not looked into the details of CART/TART and their interaction with OMTC) It's entirely possible that (b) is true *now* -- the test may have been good and proper for the previous environment, but now the environment characteristics were changed such that the test needs tweaks. Em

Re: Intent to implement: WebGL 2.0

2014-05-08 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:25:49 AM UTC-4, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Making the Web little-endian may indeed have been the right thing. > Still, at least from the outside, it looks like the WebGL group didn't > make an intentional wise decision to make the Web little-endian but > instead made a naive

Re: Intent to implement: WebGL 2.0

2014-05-07 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:30:27 AM UTC-4, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > In general, I'm worried about groups that are rather isolated and that > have non-Web background members making decisions that go against the > Web wisdom gained from painful experience. The WebGL group wasn't/isn't isolated fr

Re: Intent to implement: WebGL 2.0

2014-05-07 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 9:20:18 AM UTC-4, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-07, 6:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > >> WebGL is already following the OpenGL path. Trying to make it more > >> "webby" by trying to mush the APIs together isn't doing the web a favor > >> since the API is alread

Re: Intent to implement: WebGL 2.0

2014-05-06 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:30:42 PM UTC-4, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-05-06, 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > >> That's why if we just expose different features on the object returned by > >> getContext("webgl") depending on client hardware details, we will create a > >> compatibility mess, un

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

2014-04-17 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:18:01 AM UTC-4, Gervase Markham wrote: > > The good news is that with the preview release of the latest SDK, > > they added a C API that does everything that we need. So this might > > become a moot point; we can dlopen/dlsym our way to victory, and I'm > > already r

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

2014-04-16 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:17:44 PM UTC-4, Rob Manson wrote: > We've also put together a plugin for our open source awe.js framework > that uses getUserMedia() to turn the Rift into a video-see-thru AR > device too. And for the 6dof tracking we just use the open source > oculus-bridge app that

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

2014-04-16 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:00:40 PM UTC-4, Eric Rahm wrote: > So who actually needs to talk to Oculus? I can try to reach out some > folks I used to work with who are there now and see if they're > interested in making license modifications. Already in the works. :) The good news is that wi

Re: Standards side of VR

2014-04-16 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
Yep, my plan was to to not let this get beyond Nightly, maybe Aurora, but not further until the functionality and standards were firmer. - Vlad On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > > I think a great way to de

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

2014-04-15 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > > I'm asking because the Web has so far mostly been a common denominator, > > conservative platform. For example, WebGL stays at a distance behind the > > forefront of O

Re: Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

2014-04-14 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:29:43 PM UTC-4, Ralph Giles wrote: > > The goal would be to remove LibOVR before we ship (or keep it in assuming > > it gets relicensed, if appropriate), and replace it with a standard "Open > > VR" library. > > Can you dlopen the sdk, so it doesn't have to be in-tree

Oculus VR support & somehwat-non-free code in the tree

2014-04-14 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
Hey all, I have a prototype of VR display and sensor integration with the web, along with an implementation for the Oculus VR. Despite there really being only one vendor right now, there is a lot of interest in VR. I'd like to add the web and Firefox to that flurry of activity... especially g

Re: UNIFIED_SOURCES breaks breakpoints in LLDB (Was: Unified builds)

2013-11-20 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
I just did a unified and non-unified build on my windows desktop -- non SSD. VS2012, using mozmake. Full clobber. (mozmake -s -j8) Unified: 20 min Non-Unified: 36 min This is huge! I was curious about the cost for incremental builds... touch gfx/2d/Factory.cpp (part of a unified file), r

Re: Proposal to remove the function timer code

2012-09-19 Thread Vladimir Vukicevic
On 9/19/2012 12:04 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: A while ago (I think more than a couple of years ago now), Vlad implemented FunctionTimer which is a facility to time how much each function exactly takes to run. Then, I went ahead and instrumented a whole bunch of code which was triggered throughout