Skip to content

Upgrade to SM 109 #340

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Upgrade to SM 109 #340

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

wusyong
Copy link
Member

@wusyong wusyong commented Jan 25, 2023

Here's my first attempt to upgrade to spider monkey 109. But there are some issues I might need some advice, so I keep it as a draft for now. Only mozjs-sys has been built and tested on Linux, macOS, and Windows.

  • On Windows, there are some new config checks need MOZILLABUILD env variable. But I couldn't figure out why it didn't call its mach_initialize to set it. The easiest way is to set it manually like $env:MOZILLABUILD="C:\mozilla-build" for example. Could we add this in CI?

  • JS Streams have been removed. I removed the bindings in sys crate as well, but not rust-mozjs. Servo's dom implementation is going to be affected too. I'm not sure what I should do starting from here. Could we also remove all bindings and implementation?

Wu Yu Wei added 5 commits January 25, 2023 18:43
Virtualenv has been removed from sm109
Implementation in IonAnalysis has changes. We don't need to refactor that line any more.
JS Streams has been removed from sm109. See https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/bf1bc477f95d for more information.
@redfire75369
Copy link
Contributor

The issue with the MOZILLABUILD environment variable should be addressed when #326 is merged. That's waiting on a new release of MozillaBuild currently.

@jdm
Copy link
Member

jdm commented Jan 25, 2023

Yeah, I identified the risk with the streams in servo/servo#29088. I wonder if the best choice would be to rip out streams support in servo, rather than block on the rewrite?

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #358) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@redfire75369
Copy link
Contributor

I believe this is superceded by #408 so this can be closed.

@jdm jdm closed this Sep 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants