1065885 - (no-jschar) Remove jschar from mail and mailnews

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Thunderbird :: General, defect)

Description

[Kent James (:rkent)]

jschar is used in mailTestUtils.js and aboutSupportWin32.js

From m.d.platform 2014-08-14 "JSAPI PSA: RIP jschar. Hello char16_t.":

Since Firefox 27 (bug 8950470), SpiderMonkey's jschar has been a typedef for char16_t, a new C++11 type distinct from uint16_t.

With bug 1063962, SpiderMonkey's jschar typedef is gone. SpiderMonkey, its JSAPI, and Gecko now use char16_t directly.

C++ code (outside mozilla-central) compiling against mozilla-central's JSAPI will need to replace `jschar` with `char16_t` in their code. Because jschar was just a typedef for char16_t, code using char16_t should still be API and ABI compatible with the JSAPI of SpiderMonkey's current stable release (31). The next SpiderMonkey release will be 38.

This change also affects js-ctypes and the Add-on SDK. JS code (outside mozilla-central) using `ctypes.jschar` will need to be replaced with `ctypes.char16_t`. If this is too much of a compatibility problem for add-ons, we could keep ctypes.jschar as an alias for ctypes.char16_t.


chris

Comment 1

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Attachment: bug1065885_jschar.patch

Try looks ok - https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Thunderbird-Try&rev=18e5ef76b02a

Comment 2

[Kent James (:rkent)]

Comment on attachment 8488000 [details] [diff] [review]
bug1065885_jschar.patch

Review of attachment 8488000 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Looks good. Thanks!

We still need the mailnews part.

Comment 3

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

(In reply to Kent James (:rkent) from comment #2)
> We still need the mailnews part.

This already included the mailnews part. What part did you have in mind?

Comment 4

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/c4935789ba20 -> FIXED

Comment 5

[Kent James (:rkent)]

(In reply to Magnus Melin from comment #3)
> (In reply to Kent James (:rkent) from comment #2)
> > We still need the mailnews part.
> 
> This already included the mailnews part. What part did you have in mind?

Yes you are correct, sorry.