Created attachment 572669 [details] [diff] [review] Patch append doesn't need to take a JSAtom*, it can just take a JSLinearString*. That lets us not try to linearize strings that are known to be linear but which aren't also atoms.
Comment on attachment 572669 [details] [diff] [review] Patch I may have a branch patch or two which will build upon these changes, so it would be helpful to me if this were also landed on branches.
[Triage Comment] Since this has been requested for both aurora and beta, and is in a sensitive area of code, would you mind providing a risk assessment? If considered low-risk, we'll try to approve for landing this week.
It's low-risk -- the code's short and easy to understand, and the changes are simple. Note that this landed before the merge, so it's already in mozilla-aurora, which I guess means this request is only for mozilla-beta.
Marking sec-review-needed per email from akeybl
Comment on attachment 572669 [details] [diff] [review] Patch [triage comment] Approved for beta. Please land as soon as possible.
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/56f23b76a678 Thanks for working with me regarding comment 2!
Normally we would QA- code-cleanup bugs, but based on other comments in this bug I am wondering if there is anything special QA needs to verify.
(In reply to Anthony Hughes, Mozilla QA (irc: ashughes) from comment #10) > Normally we would QA- code-cleanup bugs, but based on other comments in this > bug I am wondering if there is anything special QA needs to verify. [Triage Comment] Would somebody mind addressing Anthony's question by tomorrow at 12:00PM PT 12/14? We will be holding our FF9 sign-offs later that afternoon, and need to be able to verify. Thanks!
Oops, sorry, missed this at the time. I'd say probably not. The patch is small enough that simply by observation it's fine. And the compiler may end up being smart enough to see through the changes here and make things work most optimally anyway, depending. So take your time with trickier changes than this, I think.
QA- based on comment 12.