RESOLVED FIXED 122448
[ATK] Support compilation of EFL/GTK without accessibility
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122448
Summary [ATK] Support compilation of EFL/GTK without accessibility
Krzysztof Czech
Reported 2013-10-07 06:58:21 PDT
I'm proposing a patch that adds missing HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) guards to ATK's related files so that in case of turning off the HAVE_ACCESSIBILITY macro EFL/GTK would compile properly.
Attachments
Patch (27.93 KB, patch)
2013-10-07 07:22 PDT, Krzysztof Czech
no flags
Patch (27.93 KB, patch)
2013-10-07 07:36 PDT, Krzysztof Czech
cfleizach: review-
patch (14.90 KB, patch)
2013-11-12 05:19 PST, Krzysztof Czech
no flags
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 1 2013-10-07 06:58:30 PDT
Krzysztof Czech
Comment 2 2013-10-07 07:22:22 PDT
Krzysztof Czech
Comment 3 2013-10-07 07:36:39 PDT
chris fleizach
Comment 4 2013-10-07 12:11:49 PDT
Comment on attachment 213581 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=213581&action=review > Tools/WebKitTestRunner/InjectedBundle/atk/AccessibilityUIElementAtk.cpp:1434 > +namespace WTR { Is there code like this already inside AccessibilityUIElement.cpp?
Krzysztof Czech
Comment 5 2013-10-08 01:30:21 PDT
> (From update of attachment 213581 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=213581&action=review > > > Tools/WebKitTestRunner/InjectedBundle/atk/AccessibilityUIElementAtk.cpp:1434 > > +namespace WTR { > > Is there code like this already inside AccessibilityUIElement.cpp? Yes there is, you mean it could be reused ?. Sounds good, I will check this.
Krzysztof Czech
Comment 6 2013-10-08 03:14:19 PDT
Tools/WebKitTestRunner/InjectedBundle/atk/AccessibilityUIElementAtk.cpp:1434 > > > +namespace WTR { > > > > Is there code like this already inside AccessibilityUIElement.cpp? > Yes there is, you mean it could be reused ?. > Sounds good, I will check this. It could be reused as well as I guess bits from AccessibilityUIController.cpp Line #if !PLATFORM(MAC) && !PLATFORM(GTK) && !PLATFORM(EFL) in AccessibilityUIElement.cpp can be changed to #if (!PLATFORM(MAC) && !PLATFORM(GTK) && !PLATFORM(EFL)) || !HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) but then respective mac files should have #if HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) added, otherwise when accessibility is disabled, redefinition conflicts will happen.
chris fleizach
Comment 7 2013-10-09 14:59:25 PDT
(In reply to comment #6) > Tools/WebKitTestRunner/InjectedBundle/atk/AccessibilityUIElementAtk.cpp:1434 > > > > +namespace WTR { > > > > > > Is there code like this already inside AccessibilityUIElement.cpp? > > Yes there is, you mean it could be reused ?. > > Sounds good, I will check this. > > It could be reused as well as I guess bits from AccessibilityUIController.cpp > Line #if !PLATFORM(MAC) && !PLATFORM(GTK) && !PLATFORM(EFL) in AccessibilityUIElement.cpp > can be changed to > #if (!PLATFORM(MAC) && !PLATFORM(GTK) && !PLATFORM(EFL)) || !HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) > > but then respective mac files should have #if HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) added, otherwise when accessibility is disabled, redefinition conflicts will happen. I think we should re-use these. I don't want to have to maintain two long lists of unsupported functions when adding to DRT
Krzysztof Czech
Comment 8 2013-11-12 05:19:36 PST
Krzysztof Czech
Comment 9 2013-11-12 05:27:30 PST
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Tools/WebKitTestRunner/InjectedBundle/atk/AccessibilityUIElementAtk.cpp:1434 > > > > > +namespace WTR { > > > > > > > > Is there code like this already inside AccessibilityUIElement.cpp? > > > Yes there is, you mean it could be reused ?. > > > Sounds good, I will check this. > > > > It could be reused as well as I guess bits from AccessibilityUIController.cpp > > Line #if !PLATFORM(MAC) && !PLATFORM(GTK) && !PLATFORM(EFL) in AccessibilityUIElement.cpp > > can be changed to > > #if (!PLATFORM(MAC) && !PLATFORM(GTK) && !PLATFORM(EFL)) || !HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) > > > > but then respective mac files should have #if HAVE(ACCESSIBILITY) added, otherwise when accessibility is disabled, redefinition conflicts will happen. > > I think we should re-use these. I don't want to have to maintain two long lists of unsupported functions when adding to DRT Yes, you are right in terms of maintenance, this would not be a good idea to support it. Thanks for the suggestion. I already prepared a new patch.
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 10 2013-11-13 01:59:51 PST
Comment on attachment 216655 [details] patch Clearing flags on attachment: 216655 Committed r159181: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/159181>
WebKit Commit Bot
Comment 11 2013-11-13 01:59:54 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.