527875 - Create Core: Nanojit component

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: Administration, task)

Description

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

Nanojit is the name of a piece of code that is shared by TraceMonkey and Tamarin.  Currently Nanojit bugs are filed either in "core/JavaScript Engine" or "Tamarin/JIT Compiler (Nanojit)" (where I'm using a "product/component" notation).

This is a reflection of the old code structure whereby TraceMonkey and Tamarin had their own copies of Nanojit.  Now the two share a single copy, so there should be a single Bugzilla component.

An obvious (to me) spot for this is under "core/Nanojit", though others might have different ideas.  It would make sense for the existing "Tamarin/JIT Compiler (Nanojit)" component to be removed as well (assuming that is possible).

One tricky thing is that the two existing components have different flags.  The flags on core/Nanojit arguably should be the union of those in the two existing components.  I'm also not sure who the default QA Contact should be.

Comment 1

[timeless]

We'll need a description for your component. Typically components get watchable qa contacts with predictable names, and then your qa merely adds that address to their watch list.

Enabling flags from another product/component is doable, as long as we're warned (if you give us the complete list of those flags, that's better).

Once we've created the component and enabled the flags needed by bugs from "Tamarin/JIT Compiler (Nanojit)", someone (typically me) would move all bugs (open and closed) to Core. And then someone (probably me) would delete the old component. Note that if you have queries which involve the old component name, they're going to be at best somewhat unhappy :).

Someone will of course need to confirm that your request is wanted (sorry, while I'm aware of your @mozilla.com address, I don't recognize your position in Tamarin/TraceMonkey).

Comment 2

[Edwin Smith]

I'd like to keep the Tamarin/JIT Compiler(Nanojit) component, we will still use it for tamarin-specific jit issues; but once core/Nanojit (or whatever) is created, we can transfer existing bugs to it.

I can confirm this is wanted but I dont have a mozilla.com address either :-)  Nick, along with Graydon @mozilla and Rick Reitmaier @adobe, has been working on the nanojit component for several months now making lots of desireable changes and merging the tracemonkey/tamarin branches.

proposed description for nanojit component: "JIT Compiler Infrastructure"

Comment 3

[timeless]

that's ok, I know you :). The description's a bit bare, but it'll do. We won't kill your old component.

I believe marcia has a bit of a backlog, but items like this are typically done w/in 2 days.

Comment 4

[Graydon Hoare :graydon]

Fwiw I'm in favour of this, if you need more @mozilla.com votes :) Filing these bugs under JS is starting to feel odd (and we've been prefixing them with NJ: for a while to differentiate).

Comment 5

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> I believe marcia has a bit of a backlog, but items like this are typically done
> w/in 2 days.

I just created [e-mail], so you're free to move forward with this, timeless. Otherwise, Marcia or I will get to it soon.

Comment 6

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

I created the component, but don't have time right now to move all the bugs.

Comment 7

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

If it's any use, a slight better description would be:

  "JIT Compiler Infrastructure shared by Mozilla's TraceMonkey compiler and Adobe's Tamarin compiler."

Comment 8

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

AFAICT the flags required on the Mozilla side:

  wanted‑next 	
  blocking1.9.2 	
  wanted1.9.2 	
  wanted‑fennec1.0 	
  blocking1.9.0.16 	
  blocking1.9.0.17 	
  wanted1.9.0.x 	
  blocking1.8.1.next 	
  wanted1.8.1.x 	
  blocking1.8.0.next 	
  wanted1.8.0.x 	
  bclary: in‑testsuite 	
  in‑litmus 	

  blocking‑fennec 	
  blocking1.9.3 	
  status1.9.2 	
  blocking1.9.1 	
  status1.9.1 	

And the Adobe flags:

  flashplayer‑needsversioning
  in‑testsuite 		
  wanted‑flashplayer10 		
  blocking‑flashplayer10 		
  flashplayer‑qrb 		
  brbaker: flashplayer‑triage

I just copied these lists from bugs from the existing components.

Comment 9

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

Since it is Core component I think it should inherit all of the flags in the Mozilla list automatically. I could not find a flag named bclary: in‑testsuite in the list of flags.

These are custom flags and I cannot do anything about adding them to components, but it seems they show in the UI on the one bug that is open so I think you are okay there:

*blocking‑fennec     
*blocking1.9.3     
*status1.9.2     
*blocking1.9.1     
*status1.9.1     

I added all the adobe flags to that component *except* brbaker: flashplayertriage which I also could not find.

So before we can move the bugs we still have to figure out where those two flags are as well as check that the Mozilla Core_any shows for that component. But I think it should for most.

Comment 10

[Trevor Baker]

Marcia, the flag is "flashplayer‑triage" (no user prefix), which we would like.

I don't think we need the following:
wanted‑flashplayer10         
blocking‑flashplayer10

Comment 11

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

I removed the two listed below and confirmed that flashplayer‑triage is included. Do you really need the 1.8.1 and 1.8.0 flags as well?

(In reply to comment #10)
> Marcia, the flag is "flashplayer‑triage" (no user prefix), which we would like.
> 
> I don't think we need the following:
> wanted‑flashplayer10         
> blocking‑flashplayer10

Comment 12

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

(In reply to comment #11)
> I removed the two listed below and confirmed that flashplayer‑triage is
> included. Do you really need the 1.8.1 and 1.8.0 flags as well?

Should be fine to omit them, thanks.

Comment 13

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

So in looking more closely at this, it appears you have target milestones set for various bugs that will also have to be created under the new component, or they will get lost in the move.

Comment 14

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

The TM's I see are the following - if any more are needed please let me know:

*flash10
*flash10.1
*flash10.2
*future

Comment 15

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

Edwin or Nicholas: This component has been created and all the pieces are in place to move any of the 206 bugs that are in Tamarin: JIT Compiler to the new component. Are you guys going to take care of this? If so I will resolve this bug as fixed.

Comment 16

[Nicholas Nethercote [inactive]]

Marcia, thanks for this.  I think you can resolve the bug as fixed.

Ed, can you do the transfers?  Seems more appropriate since you're an Adobe person and most of the Tamarin bugs will be by Adobe people.  Thanks.

Comment 17

[Edwin Smith]

agree this bug can be resolved.  We'll triage the tamarin/nanojit bugs and move the ones we think are appropriate.  at the moment I cannot promise when this will happen, but should be soonish.

Comment 18

[Marcia Knous [:marcia]]

Resolving fixed per comments 16 and 17. If additional tweaks are needed you can file a new bug.