Implement canvas.getContext('2d', { alpha: none })
Created attachment 193658 [details] Patch
This is not marked for review, since the feature is under discussion.
Created attachment 194676 [details] Patch
Created attachment 194683 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17141604
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass cr-linux-debug-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17303008
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass cr-android-ews (chromium-android): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17292087
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass mac-wk2-ews (mac-wk2): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17293150
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17298094
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass cr-linux-debug-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17298096
Comment on attachment 194683 [details] Patch Attachment 194683 [details] did not pass cr-android-ews (chromium-android): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17141623
Created attachment 194692 [details] Patch
This really needs to be opaque: true. I mean we're even calling it isOpaque in our own code! The test is opaque-....html and so on. Clearly the naming is wrong if we're not using it ourselves.
(In reply to comment #13) > This really needs to be opaque: true. I mean we're even calling it isOpaque in our own code! The test is opaque-....html and so on. Clearly the naming is wrong if we're not using it ourselves. That's mostly due to it being a modification of the other patch (<canvas opaque>). The naming here is intended to match WebGL. Will rename the code while we discuss it.
Created attachment 194887 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 194887 [details] Patch Attachment 194887 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb): Output: http://webkit-commit-queue.appspot.com/results/17203597 New failing tests: canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.source-out.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/canvas/philip/tests/2d.pattern.basic.nocontext.html canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.source-in.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.source-out.html canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.destination-in.html canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.copy.html canvas/philip/tests/2d.pattern.basic.nocontext.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/compositedscrolling/overflow/image-load-overflow-scrollbars.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.destination-in.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.destination-atop.html platform/chromium/virtual/softwarecompositing/overflow/image-load-overflow-scrollbars.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.source-in.html canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.destination-atop.html compositing/overflow/image-load-overflow-scrollbars.html platform/chromium/virtual/gpu/canvas/philip/tests/2d.composite.uncovered.nocontext.copy.html
Created attachment 194965 [details] Archive of layout-test-results from gce-cr-linux-06 for chromium-linux-x86_64 The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the chromium-ews. Bot: gce-cr-linux-06 Port: chromium-linux-x86_64 Platform: Linux-3.3.8-gcg-201212281604-x86_64-with-GCEL-10.04-gcel_10.04
Created attachment 196497 [details] Patch
Dean, is this something we should be looking at for Canvas? This is some old code, so perhaps it's not relevant anymore?
*** Bug 225191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***