RESOLVED FIXED 108578
[CPP,GObject,ObjC] Add 'static' skip to CodeGenerator{CPP,GObject,ObjC}.pm 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108578
Summary [CPP,GObject,ObjC] Add 'static' skip to CodeGenerator{CPP,GObject,ObjC}.pm
Nils Barth
Reported 2013-01-31 21:42:39 PST
Legacy code generators do not support static attributes. Fix by adding a test to skip static types. This allows us to not use macros like "#if defined(TESTING_JS) || defined(TESTING_V8)" in IDL files. Concretely it's just adding a suitable check to the SkipAttribute functions, and then removing macros from the test IDL file.
Attachments
Patch (5.00 KB, patch)
2013-01-31 23:24 PST, Nils Barth 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
ChangeLog wording fix (5.01 KB, patch)
2013-01-31 23:38 PST, Nils Barth 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Nils Barth
Comment 1 2013-01-31 23:24:50 PST
Created attachment 185953 [details] Patch V. simple fix -- just check $attribute->isStatic This lets us remove macros from TestObj.idl and also TestSupplemental.idl
Kentaro Hara
Comment 2 2013-01-31 23:28:10 PST
Comment on attachment 185953 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=185953&action=review > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:8 > + Since legacy code generators (CodeGenerator{CPP,GObject,ObjC}.pm) Don't call them legacy. Their implementations are just behind.
Nils Barth
Comment 3 2013-01-31 23:30:33 PST
(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 185953 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=185953&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/ChangeLog:8 > > + Since legacy code generators (CodeGenerator{CPP,GObject,ObjC}.pm) > > Don't call them legacy. Their implementations are just behind. Oops, sorry! Is there a proper name, like "lagging code generators", or should I just call them something like "CPP/GObject/ObjC"?
Kentaro Hara
Comment 4 2013-01-31 23:31:40 PST
(In reply to comment #3) > or should I just call them something like "CPP/GObject/ObjC"? You can just say CPP/GObject/ObjC. We shouldn't break these bindings just like we shouldn't break JSC/V8.
Nils Barth
Comment 5 2013-01-31 23:32:47 PST
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > or should I just call them something like "CPP/GObject/ObjC"? > > You can just say CPP/GObject/ObjC. We shouldn't break these bindings just like we shouldn't break JSC/V8. Ok, will do.
Nils Barth
Comment 6 2013-01-31 23:38:03 PST
Created attachment 185956 [details] ChangeLog wording fix Fix wording re: CPP/GObject/ObjC in ChangeLog
Kentaro Hara
Comment 7 2013-01-31 23:38:38 PST
Comment on attachment 185956 [details] ChangeLog wording fix LGTM
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 8 2013-02-01 00:45:57 PST
Comment on attachment 185956 [details] ChangeLog wording fix Clearing flags on attachment: 185956 Committed r141551: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/141551>
WebKit Review Bot
Comment 9 2013-02-01 00:46:01 PST
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.