Move children_to_process to layout #13655
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We don't need this for Gecko, and it's hard to implement in that case because there's nowhere obvious to put it (we don't plan to create TSDs for non-dirty nodes, and non-dirty nodes can have dirty children which require the children_to_process atomic). There are various solutions here, but punting is the easiest. We'll need to rethink this if/when we need to do a bottom-up traversal for Gecko.
|
Heads up! This PR modifies the following files:
|
|
|
|
r? @emilio |
|
@bors-servo try |
bors-servo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2016
Move children_to_process to layout We don't need this for Gecko, and it's hard to implement in that case because there's nowhere obvious to put it (we don't plan to create TSDs for non-dirty nodes, and non-dirty nodes can have dirty children which require the children_to_process atomic). There are various solutions here, but punting is the easiest. We'll need to rethink this if/when we need to do a bottom-up traversal for Gecko.
|
💔 Test failed - linux-rel-css |
|
|
@bors-servo try |
|
@bors-servo retry #13605 |
bors-servo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2016
Move children_to_process to layout We don't need this for Gecko, and it's hard to implement in that case because there's nowhere obvious to put it (we don't plan to create TSDs for non-dirty nodes, and non-dirty nodes can have dirty children which require the children_to_process atomic). There are various solutions here, but punting is the easiest. We'll need to rethink this if/when we need to do a bottom-up traversal for Gecko. <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/13655) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
|
💔 Test failed - linux-rel-wpt |
|
|
@bors-servo retry #13501 |
bors-servo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2016
Move children_to_process to layout We don't need this for Gecko, and it's hard to implement in that case because there's nowhere obvious to put it (we don't plan to create TSDs for non-dirty nodes, and non-dirty nodes can have dirty children which require the children_to_process atomic). There are various solutions here, but punting is the easiest. We'll need to rethink this if/when we need to do a bottom-up traversal for Gecko. <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/13655) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
|
💔 Test failed - linux-rel-css |
|
@bors-servo retry |
bors-servo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2016
Move children_to_process to layout We don't need this for Gecko, and it's hard to implement in that case because there's nowhere obvious to put it (we don't plan to create TSDs for non-dirty nodes, and non-dirty nodes can have dirty children which require the children_to_process atomic). There are various solutions here, but punting is the easiest. We'll need to rethink this if/when we need to do a bottom-up traversal for Gecko. <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/13655) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
4 tasks
emilio
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2016
| fn did_process_child(&self) -> isize { | ||
| let data = self.get_partial_layout_data().unwrap().borrow(); | ||
| let old_value = data.parallel.children_to_process.fetch_sub(1, Ordering::Relaxed); | ||
| debug_assert!(old_value >= 1); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you remember why it was an isize instead of usize? In any case r=me
|
@bors-servo: r+ We can do the isize -> usize in a followup since it was an existing problem. |
|
📌 Commit c72fffa has been approved by |
highfive
added
S-awaiting-merge
|
☀️ Test successful - arm32, arm64, linux-dev, linux-rel-css, linux-rel-wpt, mac-dev-unit, mac-rel-css, mac-rel-wpt1, mac-rel-wpt2, windows-dev |
highfive
removed
the
S-awaiting-merge
|
I think the reason for isize is that underflow on fetch_sub is undefined. See rust-lang/rust#34618 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We don't need this for Gecko, and it's hard to implement in that case because
there's nowhere obvious to put it (we don't plan to create TSDs for non-dirty
nodes, and non-dirty nodes can have dirty children which require the
children_to_process atomic). There are various solutions here, but punting is
the easiest.
We'll need to rethink this if/when we need to do a bottom-up traversal for
Gecko.
This change is