Re: [webkit-dev] RenderArena: Teaching an old dog new tricks

On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > > > We're aware of multiple high-profile past WebKit exploits (including > the last $60,000-winning Pwnium 2 exploit) which would have been > defeated by a Slab-allocated DOM. Some of RenderArena's basic assumptions are that no renderers can

Re: [webkit-dev] Adding blending mode to WebKit canvas

On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > Maciej, > > did this sound reasonable to you? Still doesn't make sense to me. Even if we don't implement CSS 'alpha-compositing' and 'blend-mode' today, I assume we will want to implement them eventually. At that point we will want them cons

Re: [webkit-dev] RenderArena: Teaching an old dog new tricks

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > RenderArena was a perf optimization for the rendering tree, which > hyatt imported from Mozilla 10 years ago: > http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/2635 > > The prevailing lore has long been that RenderArena is no longer > useful, ugly, and shou

Re: [webkit-dev] RenderArena: Teaching an old dog new tricks

Eric Seidel wrote: However, like those bell-bottoms in your father's closet, RenderArena is back in vogue and Chromium's security team very excited about RenderArena's security benefits. Disco, like the drive-in, will never die. http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/10/mitigating-dangling-pointer-b

[webkit-dev] RenderArena: Teaching an old dog new tricks

RenderArena was a perf optimization for the rendering tree, which hyatt imported from Mozilla 10 years ago: http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/2635 The prevailing lore has long been that RenderArena is no longer useful, ugly, and should be killed! http://www.mail-archive.com/webkit-dev@lists.webkit.

Re: [webkit-dev] Porting WebKit To a new graphic backend.

? 2012-11-14 5:36, Jake ??: You might want to look at the Chromium content framework. It's based on webkit and is already ported to several platforms. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Poulain > wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, ZhangJiPeng mailto

Re: [webkit-dev] Porting WebKit To a new graphic backend.

于 2012-11-14 4:32, Benjamin Poulain 写道: On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, ZhangJiPeng > wrote: I want to porting webkit to a new graphics library, because I need to rendeting webpage to any platform. The graphic library named Picasso(http://picasso-g

Re: [webkit-dev] sharing more test references

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > > > > > Does seem pretty simple. > > > > > > is even shorter. :) > > I support getting rid of pixel tests. I suspect that some very dumb > scripts could turn large chunks of these existing pixel-tests into > ref-tests. I doubt that thos

Re: [webkit-dev] sharing more test references

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> Wouldn't the fact that there are a large set of tests with the same result >> be an argument *for* doing the iframe thing? > > The simple hand-coded green square in upper left corner should

Re: [webkit-dev] sharing more test references

Does seem pretty simple. is even shorter. :) I support getting rid of pixel tests. I suspect that some very dumb scripts could turn large chunks of these existing pixel-tests into ref-tests. I doubt that those would be the interesting ones though (where platforms have divergent results)

Re: [webkit-dev] sharing more test references

On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > Wouldn't the fact that there are a large set of tests with the same result be > an argument *for* doing the iframe thing? The simple hand-coded green square in upper left corner should be simple, perhaps even simpler than the iframe thing. > W

Re: [webkit-dev] sharing more test references

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> It turns out that we have a reasonably large number of tests that produce >> the exact same pixel results. On chromium-mac on 10.8, for example, there >> are 2048 tests that share a result

Re: [webkit-dev] sharing more test references

On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > It turns out that we have a reasonably large number of tests that produce the > exact same pixel results. On chromium-mac on 10.8, for example, there are > 2048 tests that share a result with some other test. 50 of them, for example, > draw a g

Re: [webkit-dev] Adding blending mode to WebKit canvas

Maciej, did this sound reasonable to you? Would you object if Canvas combines blending and compositing but not CSS? Rik On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> >> On Nov 11, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Rik Cabanier wrot

[webkit-dev] sharing more test references

Hi all, Currently, we have ~8000 pixel tests in the tree, and ~800 reference tests. I would like to make that first number a lot smaller. It turns out that we have a reasonably large number of tests that produce the exact same pixel results. On chromium-mac on 10.8, for example, there are 2048 te

Re: [webkit-dev] Porting WebKit To a new graphic backend.

You might want to look at the Chromium content framework. It's based on webkit and is already ported to several platforms. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, ZhangJiPeng wrote: > >> I want to porting webkit to a new graphics library, b

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: >>> >>> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That >>> kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > >> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That >> kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, >> you may as well check in port speci

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Darin Adler wrote: >> I’d prefer an directory-based overlay/inheritance approach to sharing >> WebKit1- vs. WebKit2-specific expectations over in-file keywords. I’d like >> to share more than just a central

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > We pretty much have this today (with platform/wk2 and platform/mac-wk2). > You're saying you'd prefer to add platform/wk1, platform/mac-wk1, > platform/mac-lion-wk1, and platform/mac-lion-wk2 if/where necessary (and no > keywords), right? I w

Re: [webkit-dev] Porting WebKit To a new graphic backend.

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, ZhangJiPeng wrote: >I want to porting webkit to a new graphics library, because I need to > rendeting webpage to any platform. The graphic library named Picasso( > http://picasso-graphic.googlecode.com/files/picasso12_source.tar.gz). > Only a Mobile browser us

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > I’d prefer an directory-based overlay/inheritance approach to sharing > WebKit1- vs. WebKit2-specific expectations over in-file keywords. I’d like to > share more than just a central expectations file, so we could share expected > results o

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Darin Adler wrote: >> >> On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: >> >> > I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That >> > kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the f

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > Here is a ref test result from ietestcenter: > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/ietestcenter/css3/flexbox/flexbox-flex-002-expected.htm > > Looking at that HTML file, it's not immediately obvious that the result is > correct. If

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > > > I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That > kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, > you may as well check in port specific pi

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

I’d prefer an directory-based overlay/inheritance approach to sharing WebKit1- vs. WebKit2-specific expectations over in-file keywords. I’d like to share more than just a central expectations file, so we could share expected results or even WebKit1 or WebKit2-specific tests. -- Darin __

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke >> wrote: >> >> >> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote: > Dirk Pranke writes: > >> So, it seems like WK1 and WK2 keywords might be useful. However, I >> don't really want to add more divergence between ports, so it would be >> nice to have everyone agree to use it if we were to add it. >>

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote: > I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That kind of > misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, you may as > well check in port specific pixel results which are easier to review for > correctness.

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke > wrote: > >> > >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not > >> very well), and we certainly should be tr

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

Dirk Pranke writes: > So, it seems like WK1 and WK2 keywords might be useful. However, I > don't really want to add more divergence between ports, so it would be > nice to have everyone agree to use it if we were to add it. > > What do you all think? Would you like this feature, and would you all

Re: [webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

I don't have strong opinions on this, but one advantage of using the keywords and getting rid of the dedicated TestExpectations files would be to make the fallback graph actually be a tree instead of a DAG. This would simplify the rebaselining tooling considerably and allow us to make a bunch of ca

[webkit-dev] do you want "WK1" and "WK2" keywords in the TestExpectations files?

Hi all, I occasionally get asked if the TestExpectations syntax supports a way to distinguish different results for WebKit1 and WebKit2 via keywords. We currently don't do this, and different ports have worked around this in slightly different ways by using dedicated wk2-specific TestExpectations

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

Right. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > If we do add base test expectations shared by all platforms, please don’t put > the file into LayoutTests/platform/generic; just put it at the top level of > LayoutTests. > > -- Darin > ___

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

If we do add base test expectations shared by all platforms, please don’t put the file into LayoutTests/platform/generic; just put it at the top level of LayoutTests. -- Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: >> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not >> very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they >> occur. > > > Hmm, I actually used port

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not > very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they > occur. Hmm, I actually used port specific reftest expectation files in a recent patch [1] (since ro

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > That would seem to work only if the test(s) fail the same way on all > ports. In the case that I'm working from, I'm using reftests, where I know > the correct expectations, but the actual behavior will (does) differ on > different ports (whe

Re: [webkit-dev] Problems with the new NATIVE_TYPE_ERR

On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Joshua Bell wrote: > The switch from DOMException of type TYPE_MISMATCH_ERR to TypeError does not > appear to be controversial, but as arv@ mentioned in one of the bugs: > > "WebIDL only defines bindings for ECMAScript. We really need someone from > Apple to take

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they occur. Perhaps we should discuss why you need them (in a separate thread with a separate subject line)? It sounds like this largely has to do with what features a

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > implements the expected behavior (on some but not all ports), and the > comment further follow-on > s/the comment further/then commit further/ ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.or

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

That would seem to work only if the test(s) fail the same way on all ports. In the case that I'm working from, I'm using reftests, where I know the correct expectations, but the actual behavior will (does) differ on different ports (when the corresponding feature is committed). I would like to be

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

That said, I think adding a generic TestExpectations file is a good idea; it would allow us to replace the "-disabled" convention for some tests and allow us to skip tests that were temporarily crashing or timing out everywhere (which *-expected or *-failing wouldn't help with). It should be easy e

Re: [webkit-dev] commit-queue bot missing a dependency? ("ImportError: No module named logilab.astng.utils")

Also, I just landed a change (r134445) that should in theory auto-fix this. Let me know if anyone is still seeing issues. -- Dirk On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > % rm -fr Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled/.pylint.url \ > > Tools/Scripts/wekbitpy

Re: [webkit-dev] commit-queue bot missing a dependency? ("ImportError: No module named logilab.astng.utils")

% rm -fr Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled/.pylint.url \ Tools/Scripts/wekbitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled/.pylint-0.25.1.url \ Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thridparty/autoinstalled/pylint This is roughly the equivalent of a clobber for the autoinstalled packages (w

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

It is customary to add a failing test expectation (i.e. *-expected.txt file that contains the said failure) in such cases. On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply > generically (to all ports). > > It would be

Re: [webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

Just put the expected files in the same directory as the test. Simon On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply > generically (to all ports). > > It would be nice to have something like > LayoutTests/platform/ge

[webkit-dev] generic test expectations?

Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply generically (to all ports). It would be nice to have something like LayoutTests/platform/generic/TestExpectations to which one could add new tests that are known to fail everywhere (e.g., because the code that implements a fe

Re: [webkit-dev] commit-queue bot missing a dependency? ("ImportError: No module named logilab.astng.utils")

I'm seeing the same on the Android bot. What is the right way to fix this? Cheers, Peter On 13 Nov 2012 18:31, "Dirk Pranke" wrote: > Argh, yeah. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what triggers this problem. > It's easy enough to fix as soon as I can find someone w/ access to the > CQ. > > -- Dirk > >

Re: [webkit-dev] Problems with the new NATIVE_TYPE_ERR

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > Four months back we added NATIVE_TYPE_ERR for IndexedDB, as a way for the > DOM code to raise JavaScript type error exceptions rather than DOM > exceptions > . Yesterday we started using > NATIVE_TYPE_E

Re: [webkit-dev] commit-queue bot missing a dependency? ("ImportError: No module named logilab.astng.utils")

Argh, yeah. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what triggers this problem. It's easy enough to fix as soon as I can find someone w/ access to the CQ. -- Dirk On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > Sounds related to a recent changed made by dpranke. > > Adam > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7

[webkit-dev] Problems with the new NATIVE_TYPE_ERR

Four months back we added NATIVE_TYPE_ERR for IndexedDB, as a way for the DOM code to raise JavaScript type error exceptions rather than DOM exceptions . Yesterday we started using NATIVE_TYPE_ERR elsewhere in the DOM

[webkit-dev] Porting WebKit To a new graphic backend.

hi all, I want to porting webkit to a new graphics library, because I need to rendeting webpage to any platform. The graphic library named Picasso(http://picasso-graphic.googlecode.com/files/picasso12_source.tar.gz). Only a Mobile browser use this port at present(http://www.zncsoft.com/down.html).

Re: [webkit-dev] commit-queue bot missing a dependency? ("ImportError: No module named logilab.astng.utils")

Sounds related to a recent changed made by dpranke. Adam On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote: > > commit-queue bot seems to be missing a pylint dependency? This is what I got > for my rebaseline in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102059: > --- > Failed to run "['/mnt/g

[webkit-dev] commit-queue bot missing a dependency? ("ImportError: No module named logilab.astng.utils")

commit-queue bot seems to be missing a pylint dependency? This is what I got for my rebaseline in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102059: --- Failed to run "['/mnt/git/webkit-commit-queue/Tools/Scripts/webkit-patch', '--status-host=queues.webkit.org', '-..." exit_code: 2 Last 500 character

[webkit-dev] Chromium TestRunner API

Hi, the chromium port is now exposing a new public API defined in Tools/DumpRenderTree/chromium/TestRunner/public Chromium's content_shell and DumpRenderTree(*) are depending on this API to instantiate almost a