This extension has been blacklisted on OS X 10.9 running on a Nvidia driver. But the crash described in 814839 seams to be fixed, and the WebGL conformance test is passed.

I have forgotten to qrefresh before uploading... =D

Comment on attachment 793723 [details] [diff] [review] patch revision 2 Review of attachment 793723 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: gfx/gl/GLContext.cpp @@ +830,3 @@ > if (WorkAroundDriverBugs() && > + Vendor() == gl::GLContext::VendorNVIDIA && > + !nsCocoaFeatures::OnMavericksOrLater()) We should be doing this with our blacklisting system, not hard-coded. We're not trying to use a 10.9 feature, but rather stop ourselves from using apparently broken drivers from 10.8 and earlier.

Oh I see... So, why is that been done this way?

Comment on attachment 793723 [details] [diff] [review] patch revision 2 Review of attachment 793723 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, I agree with Jeff: it would be nice to have all these things handled by the blacklisting system. The problem is that we do not currently have in our blocklisting system a Feature for "EXT_packed_depth_stencil", so we would have to add one, that that is very dangerous with our stupid blocklisting system: if a new downloadable blacklist entry were added with that feature, it would get mis-interpreted as "all features" by older Gecko's. That has severely bitten us before. So for now --- pending the blocklisting system rewrite that has been discussed and even designed but never prioritized --- we will have to do with hardcoded checks as in the present patch. Jeff: please consider lifting the r- Guillaume: please do not land as long as there is a r-

For sure! Thanks!

As green as an apple : https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=7753376c1239

(In reply to Benoit Jacob [:bjacob] from comment #5) > Comment on attachment 793723 [details] [diff] [review] > patch revision 2 > > Review of attachment 793723 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > In theory, I agree with Jeff: it would be nice to have all these things > handled by the blacklisting system. > > The problem is that we do not currently have in our blocklisting system a > Feature for "EXT_packed_depth_stencil", so we would have to add one, that > that is very dangerous with our stupid blocklisting system: if a new > downloadable blacklist entry were added with that feature, it would get > mis-interpreted as "all features" by older Gecko's. That has severely bitten > us before. > > So for now --- pending the blocklisting system rewrite that has been > discussed and even designed but never prioritized --- we will have to do > with hardcoded checks as in the present patch. > > Jeff: please consider lifting the r- > Guillaume: please do not land as long as there is a r- Alright, that was my fear. Let's just hardcode this then.