This patch is generated by running the following script under layout/,
and then manually delete the FIXME comment in LayoutConstants.h
#!/bin/bash
function rename() {
find .\
-type f\
! -path "./obj*"\
! -path "./.git"\
! -path "./.hg"\
\( -name "*.cpp" -or\
-name "*.h" \)\
-exec sed -i -e "s/$1/$2/g" "{}" \;
}
rename NS_INTRINSIC_WIDTH_UNKNOWN NS_INTRINSIC_ISIZE_UNKNOWN
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D29746
Really sorry for the size of the patch :(
Only intentional behavior change is in the uses of HasLengthAndPercentage(),
where it's easier to do the right thing. The checks that used to check for
(IsCalcUnit() && CalcHasPercentage()) are wrong since bug 957915.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D19553
This patch makes us handle calc with percentages when we can convert to
percentages the same way we handle plain percentages in table layout.
We still treat length + percentage as auto (this matches Blink / WebKit as
well). There's one case we differ with Blink / WebKit, which is calc(% + 0px),
which they'd treat as auto instead of a percentage.
I think this is a bug on them (or at least worth some spec clarification). I
filed https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3482 for that.
In practice what that'd means for us if the WG decides that Blink / WebKit is
right in that case is that we'd need to keep track of whether the calc()
specifies lengths, and return false from ConvertsToPercent if so.
In any case, nothing that would massively change this patch, and I think enough
of an edge case that is not worth blocking on the CSSWG decision here. Though I
could be convinced otherwise of course.
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D15719
Support unprefixed min-content and max-content and treat the prefixed
version as aliases for
1. width, min-width, max-width if inline-axis is horizontal, and
2. height, min-height, max-height if inline-axis is vertical, and
3. inline-size, min-inline-size, max-inline-size, and
4. flex-basis.
Besides, update the test cases to use unprefixed max-content and
min-content.
Depends on D7535
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D7536
This patch is an automatic replacement of s/NS_NOTREACHED/MOZ_ASSERT_UNREACHABLE/. Reindenting long lines and whitespace fixups follow in patch 6b.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5UQVHElSpCr
The casts in nsCSSProps.cpp (defining kBoxSizingKTable) and in
nsComputedDOMStyle::DoGetBoxSizing (using
nsCSSProps::ValueToKeywordEnum) are a little bit annoying, though aren't
a net reduction in typesafety.
The casts in nsRuleNode.cpp (SetDiscrete) are a little more annoying,
though the change in this patch should be sufficient for converting all
properties -- but that may also mean reducing typesafety a bit for all
properties.
I'd like to find something better to do about them, but I think I'm ok
landing this before doing that. Bug 1224918 covers doing better.
Except for the changes in:
layout/generic/nsIFrame.h (part)
layout/style/nsComputedDOMStyle.h (all)
layout/style/nsRuleNode.cpp (part)
layout/style/nsStyleContext.cpp (part)
layout/style/nsStyleContext.h (part)
(see patch 3b in the bug), this patch was written with the sed script:
s/\<GetStyle\(Font\|Color\|List\|Text\|Visibility\|Quotes\|UserInterface\|TableBorder\|SVG\|Background\|Position\|TextReset\|Display\|Content\|UIReset\|Table\|Margin\|Padding\|Border\|Outline\|XUL\|SVGReset\|Column\)\>/Style\1/g
This makes the distribution of pref/min width and the distribution of
percentage width from column-spanning cells more consistent with each
other. Having them inconsistent means that a column-spanning cell that
has both percentage width and minimum intrinsic width might distribute
those widths among its columns differently, which can then lead to the
percentages unnecessarily increasing the table's preferred intrinsic
width.
(It *might* also be worth fixing the FLEX_ALL_LARGE case in
DistributeWidthToColumns to also check for originating cells, since it's
now the only case that doesn't, except that we can't guarantee that
there are columns with originating cells, so it would really require
splitting that case, which is extra complexity that doesn't seem worth
it for such a rarely-hit and non-interoperable case.)
alaskanemily