Re: Firefox 1.5 memory leaks

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Firefox 1.5 memory leaks

Aaron Leventhal-3
There is no way for an end user to find out of Mozilla's accessibility
code is enabled. On Gnome the user could check the system pref for
accessibility. On Windows accessibility is turned on lazily but there's
no way to check if that happened.

On GNOME, this code is what checks for accessibility:
It first checks for an environment variable called GNOME_ACCESSIBILITY
If that's not set it checks "config.use_system_prefs.accessibility"

So presumeably you could force it off by setting

- Aaron

L. David Baron wrote:

> I recently (thanks to the X pixmap measurements of some of the folks
> working on one-laptop-per-child [1]) found that there's a *huge* leak
> when accessibility is enabled:
> I'm wondering if this could be contributing to the reports of huge
> memory leaks that we're getting with Firefox 1.5.  I'd be interested in
> knowing answers to the following:
>  * How can a user tell if Mozilla's accessibility code is enabled for
>    them?  (Preferably in a way that doesn't depend on assuming that the
>    code that determines whether to enable it is correct.)
>  * If it is enabled, how can a user turn it off to test the effects of
>    disabling it?
>    (In GNOME, what triggers turning on Mozilla's accessibility code is the
>    preference Desktop -> Preferences -> Accessibility -> Assistive
>    Techology Support -> Enable assistive technologies.  Changing it
>    requires logging out of GNOME and back in.)
> Without knowing the answers to those (and I've poked around a little,
> and they don't seem obvious), it's hard to know if this leak could be a
> significant part of the reports of huge leaks in Firefox 1.5.
> If, in fact, more of our users have this code enabled than we thought,
> I'm wondering if release drivers should be more conservative about
> approving accessibility fixes during release freezes on the basis that
> they only affect users who use screen readers, magnifiers, etc.  In
> fact, I'm suspicious of such reasoning even if those are the only users
> affected, since they deserve the stability that comes from gradually
> restricting what can be checked in just as much as other users do.
> -David
> [1]
dev-accessibility mailing list
[hidden email]