RESOLVED FIXED 140903
Modernize some constructors of the CSS JIT 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140903
Summary Modernize some constructors of the CSS JIT
Benjamin Poulain
Reported 2015-01-26 14:41:17 PST
Modernize some constructors of the CSS JIT
Attachments
Patch (5.51 KB, patch)
2015-01-26 14:43 PST, Benjamin Poulain 		no flags
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 1 2015-01-26 14:43:33 PST
Created attachment 245376 [details] Patch
Darin Adler
Comment 2 2015-01-26 20:19:30 PST
Comment on attachment 245376 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=245376&action=review > Source/WebCore/cssjit/SelectorCompiler.cpp:155 > + BacktrackingAction traversalBacktrackingAction = BacktrackingAction::NoBacktracking; I’ve been using the { } syntax for these instead of the = syntax. I wonder if we should chose one over the other for the project as a whole.
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 3 2015-01-27 12:46:32 PST
Comment on attachment 245376 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 245376 Committed r179204: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/179204>
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 4 2015-01-27 12:46:37 PST
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Benjamin Poulain
Comment 5 2015-01-27 12:47:22 PST
(In reply to comment #2) > Comment on attachment 245376 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=245376&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/cssjit/SelectorCompiler.cpp:155 > > + BacktrackingAction traversalBacktrackingAction = BacktrackingAction::NoBacktracking; > > I’ve been using the { } syntax for these instead of the = syntax. I wonder > if we should chose one over the other for the project as a whole. Yep, we should.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.