Hello WebKit,
Some time ago I wrote a patch that would make the test runners detect baseline
that had been generated with the --ignore-metrics flag, see
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94815 . This makes it possible to
generate baselines that would always be testing ignoring metrics,
On Sep 18, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Kangil Han kangil@samsung.com wrote:
However, enabling encoding detector by javaScript manipulation seems not
feasible since encoding detector works on reading input stream level.
You could probably make an encoding detection test using an iframe with a data
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Darin Adler da...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Kangil Han kangil@samsung.com wrote:
However, enabling encoding detector by javaScript manipulation seems not
feasible since encoding detector works on reading input stream level.
You could
As ossy has suggested in the bug, we should just convert those tests that
don't require metrics equivalency to dumpAsText tests.
On Sep 19, 2012 2:53 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com wrote:
Hello WebKit,
Some time ago I wrote a patch that would make the test runners detect
baseline
After some limited amount of thought, I'm inclined to agree with
Ryosuke and Ossy here. If we have tests that don't depend on checking
the metrics, can they just be dumpAsText tests or reftests instead?
I thought the initial motivation for --ignore-metrics was for new
ports to at least confirm
So this thread kinda died. Anyone have any suggestions? Where is JSC's
SerializedScriptValue consistency tested?
Alec
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alec Flett alecfl...@chromium.org wrote:
Sorry I totally left out the I expose this through Internals - and adam
has explained the rationale
On Wednesday 19 September 2012, Dirk Pranke wrote:
After some limited amount of thought, I'm inclined to agree with
Ryosuke and Ossy here. If we have tests that don't depend on checking
the metrics, can they just be dumpAsText tests or reftests instead?
They could be. The tests I had in mind
It isn't, it's never been a concern as our serialisation format is simple
enough to be hard to break. That said tests would be fine, i'm just not sure
how you would do them nicely.
--Oliver
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Alec Flett alecfl...@chromium.org wrote:
So this thread kinda died.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com
wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2012, Dirk Pranke wrote:
After some limited amount of thought, I'm inclined to agree with
Ryosuke and Ossy here. If we have tests that don't depend on checking
the metrics, can they just
My suggestion is to write a unit test in Chromium's webkit_unit_test framework.
Adam
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Alec Flett alecfl...@chromium.org wrote:
So this thread kinda died. Anyone have any suggestions? Where is JSC's
SerializedScriptValue consistency tested?
Alec
On Tue, Sep
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com wrote:
Thanks! So is PropertyMapHashTable for properties that have been defined
by the user, or is it not that simple?
Yes.
Apologies. Basically, does the implementation of object property access
in the JIT codebase also
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen k...@carewolf.com
wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2012, Dirk Pranke wrote:
After some limited amount of thought, I'm inclined to agree with
Ryosuke and Ossy here.
On Wednesday 19 September 2012, Dirk Pranke wrote:
If you can point to specific tests you'd like to try this for I can
comment in more detail, but I'm not really okay with a blanket
approval for using --ignore-metrics whenever we feel like it yet.
In the referenced bug I added an example
These changes are now starting to land ...
as of r129047, TEXT, IMAGE+TEXT, and AUDIO are no longer legal
keywords in the TestExpectations syntax ... you should use FAIL
instead.
I will be landing the support for the new syntax as quickly as I can
to minimize the transition period. Apologies for
Thanks! Do you mind pointing me to where this happens in the code? (passing
an Identifer to a C++ helper?)
Here's an example function called by the JIT, from DFGOperations.cpp:
void DFG_OPERATION operationPutByIdNonStrict(ExecState* exec, EncodedJSValue
encodedValue, JSCell* base,
Assuming my changes stick, all of the TestExpectations files in the
repo have been converted to the new syntax. The old syntax is still
supported as well, but please don't use it :).
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/TestExpectations
At the moment I'm chasing down some minor issues but I haven't
16 matches
Mail list logo
