From owner-freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org Tue Aug 23 09:31:03 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chromium@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AF1BC29E8 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de) Received: from smtp.rlwinm.de (smtp.rlwinm.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:201:31ef::e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B28F61C78 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de) Received: from vader9.bultmann.eu (unknown [87.253.189.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.rlwinm.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE58C5AED for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:31:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: 52.0.2743.82 (64-bit) to go, Aw snap fixed as well. To: freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org References: <1471486169.7533.8.camel@zoho.com> <1471487392.7533.22.camel@zoho.com> <3cdd3ac94cc67da02f16c7899e405201@kapsi.fi> <1471846829.4089.12.camel@au.dyndns.ws> <20160822175504.GR18643@e-new.0x20.net> From: Jan Bramkamp Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:31:01 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-chromium@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Chromium issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:31:04 -0000 On 22/08/16 19:59, brunomaximom@openmailbox.org wrote: > Em 2016-08-22 14:55, Lars Engels escreveu: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:50:29PM +0930, Wayne Sierke wrote: >>> On Sat, 2016-08-20 at 21:58 +0300, Arto Pekkanen wrote: >>> > You are so AWESOME!!! :) Thank you very much for your efforts! >>> > >>> > There was a paid bounty posted for solving this problem, did anybody >>> > claim it yet? >>> > >>> > Also, I want to ask a dumb question (since I am not a dev): was the >>> > reason for "Aw snap!" tab crashes because of the difference in >>> > behavior >>> > of mmap() between Linux and FreeBSD? If not, what was the actual >>> > reason >>> > for this problem? I mean these problems did not manifest in Linux, >>> > so >>> > this whole issue was really arcane :S >>> > >>> > clutton kirjoitti 18.08.2016 05:29: >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 05:09 +0300, clutton wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > I've just fixed the Aw, snap. I believe so. >>> > > > >>> > > > The patch is going to be huge, not because of this simple bug. >>> > > > New >>> > > > version was ported as well with some extra things. I need few >>> > > > more >>> > > > days >>> > > > to polish everything and create patches for some things that are >>> > > > to >>> > > > ugly now. And probably few days more to be sure that it works >>> > > > everywhere 9, 10, HEAD. The current porting was done on HEAD. >>> > > I see. 52 was already ported. I actually asked on this maillist, If >>> > > anyone working on this? It's bad when the same work done twice. >>> > > >>> > > From my liaskos/freebsd-chromium reply::: >>> > > Oh, I did my own porting as well. My first working version were >>> > > done a >>> > > week ago but real fixing 'Aw, snap' were done just now. Such a pity >>> > > that we both did the work. I spend endless time with lldb. I also >>> > > ported tools/gn/bootstrap and a lot of other stuff were polished. >>> >>> Unfortunately while the current pkg: >>> >>> chromium-52.0.2743.116 www/chromium >>> >>> appears to have eliminated the "Aw, snap!" behaviour, pages now just >>> stall quietly, becoming unresponsive. Stopping the page loading and >>> refreshing the page doesn't recover and the stalled tab has to be >>> closed and re-opened. >>> >>> From a UE perspective the "Aw, snap!" behaviour was actually better >>> since it at least provided a definite indicator of failure and (in my >>> case at least) failed "Aw, snap!" pages were recoverable with just a >>> refresh - albeit of late the "Aw, snap!" was tending to recur more >>> frequently on refreshes than I had noticed with earlier versions of >>> chromium. >> >> Same here. Hanging pages, no more "Aw, snap!" messages. > > Same here 2. You're not alone.