On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Context: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
>
> Adam Barth said:
>> It's not clear to me that running WebCore on multiple interlocked threads is
>> a good idea. That
>> seems like a pretty major change to WebCore's architecture. Is
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> > Context: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
> >
> > Adam Barth said:
> >> It's not clear to me that running WebCore on multiple interlocked
> threads is a good idea. That
On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Context: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
>
> Adam Barth said:
>> It's not clear to me that running WebCore on multiple interlocked threads is
>> a good idea. That
>> seems like a pretty major change to WebCore's architecture. Is t
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> Context: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
>> Adam Barth said:
>>> It's not clear to me that running WebCore on multiple interlocked threads
>>> is a good idea. That
>>> seems lik
On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
>
>> The iOS port does not require re-architecting WebCore.
>>
>> Bug 109071 was about coming up with a better name for a method that is
>> primarily used in ASSERT()s in WebCore. Without chan
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
>>> The iOS port does not require re-architecting WebCore.
>>>
>>> Bug 109071 was about coming up with a better name for a method that is
>>
On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
The iOS port does not require re-architecting WebCore.
Bug 109071 was abo
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Pratik Solanki wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
> The iOS port does not re
On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
The iOS port does not require re-architecting WebCore.
Bug 109071 was ab
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM, David Kilzer wrote:
> The iOS port does not
On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> One simple example is V8, which stores the current v8::Isolate in
> thread-local storage.
>
> However, the problem is certainly not limited to V8, nor is it even
> limited to the code we're using today. Running WebCore on multiple
> interlocke
On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
>
>
> If we'd taken an equally hard line when Google wanted to merge the Chromium
> port to trunk, with a number of design choices in place that we didn't agree
> with but which were hard to change, it probably still wouldn't be in the tree
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> I would recommend minimizing the re-architecture of WebCore as you are in
> the early stages of upstreaming. It seems like you already have a working
> port that you could simply ups
On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>> I would recommend minimizing the re-architecture of WebCore as you are in
>> the early stages of upstreaming. It seems like you al
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>>
>> I would recommend minimizing the re-architecture of WebCore as
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, James Robinson wrote:
> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/141812 (
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108139) added fine-grain locking
> to the AtomicString table in order to support the iOS WebKit threading
> model. If parallel execution is not possible, wh
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> There are certainly pros and cons to merging. It would be great get input
> from the broader WebKit community on the tradeoff of merging sooner vs
> avoidance of weird legacy code in the main tree. In the meantime, we'll
> stick to mergi
On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:01 PM, James Robinson wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>
> P.S. "Running WebCore on interlocking threads" is a needlessly scary way to
> describe what iOS WebKit does. There is no complex fine-grained locking or
> actual paralle
Hi Peter,
On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> There are certainly pros and cons to merging. It would be great get input
> from the broader WebKit community on the tradeoff of merging sooner vs
> avoidance of weird leg
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> There are certainly pros and cons to merging. It would be great get input
>> from the broader WebKit com
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>> There are certainly pros and cons to me
On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>
> Ok. I'm sold. I suspect we'll want to move the iOS port off of
> USE(WEB_THREAD), but I can see how it's better to do that work in trunk.
We definitely want to get off the web thread over time. There's two paths by
which this will star
22 matches
Mail list logo
