keeleysam / tenfourfox

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/tenfourfox
0 stars 0 forks source link

Omnibus js issues fx10: fix, or spin off js9? #100

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
A number of breaking changes are landing in Fx10 which will wreck our 
interpreter.

option 1: fix them all

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693815
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=697666
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684039 (adapt for PCRE, easy 
rewrite)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=673188 (undo; related: 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694527 )
This will probably have to be repaired by simply moving the compile step to 
checkSyntax and making the actual compilation a no-op *or* if we can return 
errors from the compilation, return true; in checkSyntax.

There may be others.

By Fx11 if there is no mjit then we must spin off js10 (see below).

option 2: spin off js9 now

Hack build system to build js9 instead of js, using Fx9's js. 

We could even try to get regexp compilation with tracing: 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=461050

Original issue reported on code.google.com by classi...@floodgap.com on 30 Oct 2011 at 3:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
and then https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463545

Original comment by classi...@floodgap.com on 30 Oct 2011 at 3:50

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The regexp compiler won't work without the tree generated in Fx3.6 (which 4+ no 
longer makes). We will need to use PCRE's tree for this.

Original comment by classi...@floodgap.com on 30 Oct 2011 at 9:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by classi...@floodgap.com on 3 Nov 2011 at 4:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685358 may still be relevant, but 
probably isn't as long as we don't ever invoke methodjit (unless it is working 
by Fx10 timeframe).

Now that issue 101 is landing, M684039, M673188 and M694527 are irrelevant 
because we will be on YARR JIT. So we just have to worry about keeping the 
tracer if methodjit is not yet ready.

Original comment by classi...@floodgap.com on 23 Nov 2011 at 10:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Methodjit is now ready. So we can close this: we're up to date!

Original comment by classi...@floodgap.com on 17 Dec 2011 at 8:56