#Night productoin pref setter mac os x

The new release fixes Group ID increment in Mac OS X Users export.

#Night productoin pref setter password

Passenger 3.5.8: server account creation and password generation tool. Memory Monitor 1.2.6: displays a graph of memory usage in the Dock.Įxt2 Filesystem 1.4d3: access Ext2 (Linux) disks with OS X. In this release, Japanese and French localizations have been added. In this release, using a semicolon instead of colon after the scheme no longer confuses scamwatch.īetterZip 1.2.2: archiving and compression tool: zip, tar, gzip, bzip2, rar, 7-zip, cpio. There is also Drag and Drop on tabs.Įudora 6.2.4b6: popular email client. In this release, users can drag/paste a 'defaults write.' string into Pref Setter. If we make any modification, they should be near IonBuilder::getPropTr圜ommonGetter, and identically for setters.Pref Setter 1.2: view and edit preference files.

#Night productoin pref setter code

The problem is that we do not have a good way to represent a call issued from a getter/setter and resume it correctly in the baseline code / interpreter. > Shell benchmark part 2: the rise of the functionsįYI, this is likely related to the fact that IonMonkey does not yet inline getters/setters. (In reply to Till Schneidereit from comment #10) This should not happen, otherwise this means that instead of producing a call, we go through the VM function, which is extremely bad. > Inlining would be great too, but I'm not even sure it's necessary - perf > jitcode into GetPropertyOperation/SetPropertyOperation and kin, then back > In SPS profiles most of the problem seems to be the transition out of the (In reply to Kevin Gadd (:kael) from comment #7) Inlining would be great too, but I'm not even sure it's necessary - perf might be adequate without it. In SPS profiles most of the problem seems to be the transition out of the jitcode into GetPropertyOperation/SetPropertyOperation and kin, then back into the actual getter/setter code. It's not possible for my codegen to just figure out 'oh, these are getters/setters' and insert method calls - the only alternative would be to introduce getters/setters for *all* values and then always call the methods, which would likely be a perf loss overall and would complicate the generated code. It's much harder to eliminate the use of getters/setters in this code because I need a way for packed structs backed by a typed array to look and behave like packed structs that live entirely in a JS object. I should also mention that I am relying on getters/setters for a partial Binary Data shim that I'm using in some of my experiments with emscripten interop and typed array heaps. Can we get perfect static information? If not, how many checks do we need and how fast can they be made?

With perfect static information, it seems we could reduce this to the same thing as a property get. The second question, for the JIT people, is how fast can we hope to make this? In this case (which is probably about the usual), the property is defined in the prototype and uses a getter, which is a function that just returns a property. Would you just go ahead and target Chrome and Firefox more if they were the only browsers good at this, or would you avoid it in order to work in more browsers? Kevin, what do you think browsers, and Firefox in particular, should aim for with getters/setters? All other browsers are very slow at these tests, and probably will be so for some time. I tested with IM and got 20kops/s, which is 2x slower than vanilla. (I note that Firefox 18 shows a lower rate overall than Fx 16, which may be something to look into, although Fx18 is only one sample.) The archived results show Chrome 21 (18kops/s, 2x slower than vanilla property), Chrome 22 (28kops/s, 3x slower than vanilla), and Firefox 18 (21kops/s, 2x slower than vanilla) doing the best at getters and setters. I just took another look at the JSPerf benchmark.