Closed Bug 381621 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Get rid of nsBoxFrame::AddRef/Release

Categories

(Core :: Layout, defect)

x86
Windows XP
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: sharparrow1, Assigned: sharparrow1)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Attached patch PatchSplinter Review
Getting rid of nsBoxFrame AddRef/Release plus some trivial cleanups.
Attachment #265693 - Flags: review?(roc)
Comment on attachment 265693 [details] [diff] [review] Patch > nsresult > nsBoxFrame::GetContentOf(nsIContent** aContent) > { > // If we don't have a content node find a parent that does. > nsIFrame *frame = this; > while (frame) { > *aContent = frame->GetContent(); > if (*aContent) { > NS_ADDREF(*aContent); >+ NS_ASSERTION(*aContent == GetContent(), "Can't happen"); > return NS_OK; > } > > frame = frame->GetParent(); > } Are you planning to rewrite this on the assumption that the assertion never fires? (Though it would be clearer to put an NS_NOTREACHED after the if {}, since all you're really doing is asserting that we never loop.) r+sr=dbaron
Attachment #265693 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #265693 - Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #265693 - Flags: review+
(In reply to comment #1) > Are you planning to rewrite this on the assumption that the assertion never > fires? (Though it would be clearer to put an NS_NOTREACHED after the if {}, > since all you're really doing is asserting that we never loop.) I'm essentially asserting that GetContentOf is just a fancy way of calling GetContent(). That's true because every frame except the root frames have content pointers. I'll file a followup on removing it.
Checked in.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Flags: in-testsuite-
(In reply to comment #2) > I'm essentially asserting that GetContentOf is just a fancy way of calling > GetContent(). That's true because every frame except the root frames have > content pointers. I'll file a followup on removing it. I know. I just think an NS_NOTREACHED right before the loop loops would be a clearer way of asserting that.
Depends on: 385286
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
Component: Layout: Misc Code → Layout
Product: Core Graveyard → Core
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: