1568760 - 1.54 - 1.73% Base Content JS (linux64-shippable, linux64-shippable-qr, macosx1014-64-shippable, windows10-64-shippable, windows10-64-shippable-qr, windows7-32-shippable) regression on push 1e0a350b954aa03edffbbd391116a0ecc01da647 (Fri July 19 2019)

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript: Internationalization API, defect, P2)

Description

[Florin Strugariu [:Bebe]]

== Change summary for alert #22122 (as of Thu, 25 Jul 2019 04:41:44 GMT) ==

Regressions:

2% Base Content JS macosx1014-64-shippable opt 4,033,069.33 -> 4,102,666.67
2% Base Content JS windows10-64-shippable opt 4,088,957.33 -> 4,158,661.33
2% Base Content JS windows10-64-shippable-qr opt 4,089,090.67 -> 4,158,581.33
2% Base Content JS windows7-32-shippable opt 3,160,118.67 -> 3,212,341.33
2% Base Content JS linux64-shippable opt 4,031,986.67 -> 4,097,568.00
2% Base Content JS linux64-shippable-qr opt 4,031,986.67 -> 4,097,674.67
2% Base Content JS windows10-64-shippable-qr opt 4,095,367.33 -> 4,158,581.33

For up to date results, see: https://treeherder.mozilla.org/perf.html#/alerts?id=22122

Comment 1

[André Bargull [:anba]]

Bug 1522070 added new self-hosted code, so this size increase is expected (cf. bug 1542272 for a similar case).

But I'm also planing to replace the code added in bug 1522070 with C++, which should result in a reduced "Base Content JS" size.

Comment 2

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

The priority flag is not set for this bug.
:Waldo, could you have a look please?

For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.

Comment 3

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

FWIW comment 1's bugs for converting from self-hosted code to C++ are bug 1570370 and bug 1373089. Patches in those bugs are all mostly reviewed, but I did throw a couple back for further changes, so both bugs aren't quite landable yet. Hopefully soon!

Comment 4

[Liz Henry (:lizzard) (relman/hg->git project)]

Tracking this for 70. We could still take patches here but maybe 71 is more reasonable

Comment 5

[janet [:janet]]

Vicky, is this a regression we want to accept in 70 release?

Comment 6

[Vicky Chin [:vchin]]

Is this related to bug 1570921? At this point I would tend to accept for 70 and track to get this in 71 so as to not add more risk to the 70 release.

Waldo can you comment on the risk and readiness of the bugs we're waiting on in c3?

Comment 7

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

Vicky, is this a bug we should still track for 71? (It is unassigned and we are in beta now)

Comment 8

[André Bargull [:anba]]

This bug is fixed by bug 1570370 (see improvements for that bug), so I think we can just close this bug. (bug 1570370 is on track for 71.)