I posted this at the 68KMLA about the update to JavaScript for Classilla 9.2, which is already using the pure-C implementation of JavaScript (SpiderMonkey). However, I would like to use the nano-JIT version called TraceMonkey, although I was unsure how well it would work. Well, we have a problem with TraceMonkey already. This is important -- if you are a 601-based Classilla user, I need to hear from you ASAP (post in this thread).

TraceMonkey fetches the processor's timebase using mftb/mftbu instructions. While these technically exist on the 601, they work completely differently from the 603 on up, and CodeWarrior refuses to use them or compile (if I force the issue with 'machine 601' I get a compilation error). This is a critical portion of the nanojit's inline assembly code and cannot be coded around. It does compile if I use 'machine 603' or 'machine 604', so it is clearly an architectural limitation.

This means that 6100, 7100, 8100, 7200 and 7500 users, and any other 601 Power Macintosh, cannot use TraceMonkey as written. I need to know *now* if you are such a user -- if there is a significant number of 601-based systems out there using Classilla, I will not continue with TraceMonkey at this time. I can't even guarantee I can port it to the 603 or 604, although if I encounter incompatibilities with those, then TraceMonkey is a no-go because I know of many people using systems with those CPUs. However, I already know that the 601 is dead in the water unless there is someone with bigger PPC assembler gonads than I that knows a solution to this. (johnklos? trag?)

This should not affect you if your system has an upgrade card in it -- I am pretty confident that the instruction would be handled by the upgrade card, not the internal CPU, even on systems where the original internal CPU remains present. I can't promise this, however, especially for weirder upgrades like the 7200 Sonnet CPU card.

If I am unable to port TraceMonkey, and it was sort of a long shot anyway, the updated SpiderMonkey will still be in Classilla 9.2 and even that is still a significant improvement, so this is hardly catastrophic. But please, speak now if you are using a 601 system with Classilla so I can at least do some future planning.

Can you go back and edit this thread to be a poll? That might be a good way to do it, too.

Say, four options:

1. I use (or would like to use) Classilla on my 601, and would feel very lost without being able to use 9.2 when it comes out.
2. I use Classilla on my 601, but it wouldn't be the end of the world to not have 9.2; I can live with 9.1 or some other browser.
3. I do not use Classilla on my 601.
4. What is Classilla and/or a 601? (For that matter, what is a "PowerPC" and a "Macintosh", and why are you forming an army to liberate them?)

Option #4 firmly tongue-in-cheek, of course.

As for me, all my 601s are presently in storage, and have been so since before you started (or at least released,) Classilla. While it would be nice to keep 601 support, I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker at all. The 601 line is limited in so many ways, I don't forsee ever trying to use them as "main" machines on the 'net. Heck, even my 603/604 machines are generally only on the 'net as a novelty.

Classilla is generally too slow to use on pre-G3 CPUs anyway - more like a novelty, and for those purposes you can keep the old Classilla 9.1 available, maybe even release 9.1.x bug fix patches - but I think the whole point of Classilla is to have a OS 9 browser running at a useful speed for the modern internet - and that means at least a G3 no matter what.
_________________
Stop being so Complicated. Take a RISC.

http://www.adoptamac.com

I also recommend not to bother with theming support. It's a waste of time - you should just make the default theme look as close as possible to OS 9 Platinum. Right now there's some minor but noticeable differences, and tons of random little gaps here and there that makes it look kind of sloppy.

Since the themes are XUL or whatever it is, I might be able to modify the default theme to improve it.
_________________
Stop being so Complicated. Take a RISC.

http://www.adoptamac.com

Actually, theming is a really frequently requested feature, and it did work once upon a time, so I promised I would fix it. FTR, I don't use it either, but I guess a lot of people do.

In any case, I'm going to just go with a patched up SpiderMonkey for 9.2. It's still a big improvement, but I'm missing some pieces of DOM to get things like jQuery working 100%, so that will be my next goal on the road to release. I might bring this up again for 9.4, though, when I next reexamine scripting. By then there will be some new layout code, so at least that will be something for the 601s to use in their twilight.

I think that a fast 604 would be fine for this. Certainly my 233MHz G3 systems do "all right" and I bet a Kansas would be faster. A regular 603 wouldn't win any speed awards, of course, but I certainly wouldn't exclude pre-G3 systems unless I had a good reason.

Believe it or not, I even heard from someone using a 601 card and a IIci to run Classilla. He described it as pokey but useable. I was seriously impressed.

The best thing to do would be to somehow use native controls. That way you could just theme it with Kaleidoscope or Appearance Manager.

I don't know how difficult that would be though.
_________________
Stop being so Complicated. Take a RISC.

http://www.adoptamac.com

It would essentially require a ground-up rewrite, at least for the XUL components. Not trivial, and XUL and HTML are inextricably linked in Mozilla anyway.

I got the last jQuery-related bug stamped out, but I still have some other regressions related to JavaScript to do, plus the 9.1 regressions, before I can get this out.