I can do this. -- Stephanie Lewis
On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > Would someone from Apple be willing to run the patch below though the > PLT? We're doing well on our parsing benchmark (4% speedup), but the > PLT might have a different mix of HTML. > > Thanks, > Adam > > > diff --git a/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp > b/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp > index 7a9c295..5b89c37 100644 > --- a/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp > +++ b/WebCore/html/HTMLTreeBuilder.cpp > @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ HTMLTreeBuilder::HTMLTreeBuilder(HTMLTokenizer* > tokenizer, HTMLDocument* documen > , m_originalInsertionMode(InitialMode) > , m_secondaryInsertionMode(InitialMode) > , m_tokenizer(tokenizer) > - , m_legacyTreeBuilder(shouldUseLegacyTreeBuilder(document) ? new > LegacyHTMLTreeBuilder(document, reportErrors) : 0) > + , m_legacyTreeBuilder(0) > , m_lastScriptElementStartLine(uninitializedLineNumberValue) > , m_scriptToProcessStartLine(uninitializedLineNumberValue) > , m_fragmentScriptingPermission(FragmentScriptingAllowed) > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >> We're getting close to enabling the HTML5 tree builder on trunk. Once >> we do that, we'll have the core of the HTML5 parsing algorithm turned >> on, including SVG-in-HTML. There are still a bunch of details left to >> finish (such as fragment parsing, MathML entities, and better error >> reporting), but this marks a significant milestone for this work. >> >> The tree builder is markedly more complicated than the tokenizer, and >> I'm sure we're going to have some bad regressions. I'd like to ask >> your patience and your help to spot and triage these regressions. >> We've gotten about as much mileage as we can out of the HTML5lib test >> suite and the LayoutTests. The next step for is to see how the >> algorithm works in the real world. >> >> There are about 84 tests that will require new expectations, mostly >> due to invisible differences in render tree dumps (e.g., one more or >> fewer 0x0 render text). In about half the cases, we've manually >> verified that our new results agree with the Firefox nightly builds, >> which is great from a compliance and interoperability point of view. >> The other half involve things like the exact text for the <isindex>, >> which we've chosen to match the spec exactly, or the <keygen> element, >> which needs some shadow DOM love to hide its implementation details >> from web content. >> >> As for performance, last time we ran our parser benchmark, the new >> tree builder was 1% faster than the old tree builder. There's still a >> bunch of low-hanging performance work we can do, such as atomizing >> strings and inlining functions. If you're interested in performance, >> let me or Eric know and we can point you in the right direction. >> >> I don't have an exact timeline for when we're going to throw the >> switch, but sometime in the next few days. If you'd like us to hold >> off for any reason, please let Eric or me know. >> >> Adam >> >> P.S., you can follow along by CCing yourself on the master bug, >> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41123>, or by looking at our >> LayoutTest failure triage spreadsheet, >> <https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlC4tS7Ao1fIdEo0SFdLaVpiclBHMVNQcHlTenV5TEE&hl=en>. >> > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
