Comments on: browser.js cleanup ideas http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/2010/03/30/browser-js-cleanup-ideas-2/ blog? Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:34:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mossop http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/2010/03/30/browser-js-cleanup-ideas-2/comment-page-1/#comment-767 Mossop Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:08:25 +0000 http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/?p=54#comment-767 My point was that we should stop doing this if possible. My point was that we should stop doing this if possible.

]]> By: Dao http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/2010/03/30/browser-js-cleanup-ideas-2/comment-page-1/#comment-763 Dao Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:34:16 +0000 http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/?p=54#comment-763 Since we already include multiple files in browser.js at build time, it doesn't seem like adding more would make the line number situation any worse... Since we already include multiple files in browser.js at build time, it doesn’t seem like adding more would make the line number situation any worse…

]]> By: Mossop http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/2010/03/30/browser-js-cleanup-ideas-2/comment-page-1/#comment-762 Mossop Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:11:05 +0000 http://www.gavinsharp.com/blog/?p=54#comment-762 Can we use a code coverage pass to identify largely dead code? So my problem with splitting it up into multiple files and combining at build time is that error messages get junk line numbers (unless bug 246286 were fixed). Could we just include them all in browser.xul separately, does the fastload cache still mean we lose perf there? Can we use a code coverage pass to identify largely dead code?

So my problem with splitting it up into multiple files and combining at build time is that error messages get junk line numbers (unless bug 246286 were fixed). Could we just include them all in browser.xul separately, does the fastload cache still mean we lose perf there?

]]>