1261639 - Fold content process executables into single binary

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Core :: IPC, defect)

Description

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

See bug 1114647 comment #64.

Comment 1

[Kyle Repinski]

(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #0)
> See bug 1114647 comment #64.

I'm wondering what *technical* advantages and disadvantages, if any, there are to the two approaches:
1 (Current): firefox as main process, with sub-processes named other things.
2 (Proposed here): firefox as main process, as well as sub-process.

I believe I found the comment you'd mentioned about :bsmedberg recommending it BTW: bug 905073 comment #3

I understand there may be *opinions* about having different executable names for the sub-processes, such as making them easier to distinguish, but I would think there's something objective to favor one or the other.

Comment 2

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

I already stated a technical advantage in the comment. Quoting it just in case:
> Why even more different executable is added at all? It will make it
> impossible to share read-only pages between processes.

Comment 3

[Jim Mathies [:jimm]]

Closing this out. We went with firefox.exe except for plugin processes. The old name was kept due to 3rd party dependencies.