The default bug view has changed. See this FAQ.

add some stdint types to xpidl

RESOLVED FIXED in mozilla17

Status

()

Core
XPCOM
RESOLVED FIXED
5 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: tbsaunde, Assigned: tbsaunde)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug)

unspecified
mozilla17
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

Comment hidden (empty)
(Assignee)

Comment 1

5 years ago
Created attachment 648761 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

This adds [u]intn_t types to xpidl that map to the c++ type by the same name, which should help us move towards more stdint types (hopefully)

I didn't add a int8_t type because xpidl doesn't have a signed 8 bit type, and I sort of figure if we haven't needed it yet its not worth bothering with, but if you like I could try.
Attachment #648761 - Flags: review?(khuey)
Assignee: nobody → trev.saunders
Comment on attachment 648761 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Review of attachment 648761 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

::: xpcom/idl-parser/typelib.py
@@ +23,5 @@
> +    'int64_t':          xpt.Type.Tags.int64,
> +    'uint8_t':              xpt.Type.Tags.uint8,
> +    'uint16_t':     xpt.Type.Tags.uint16,
> +    'uint32_t':      xpt.Type.Tags.uint32,
> +    'uint64_t': xpt.Type.Tags.uint64,

What's up with the goofy formatting here?
(Assignee)

Comment 3

5 years ago
(In reply to Ted Mielczarek [:ted] from comment #2)
> Comment on attachment 648761 [details] [diff] [review]
> patch
> 
> Review of attachment 648761 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ::: xpcom/idl-parser/typelib.py
> @@ +23,5 @@
> > +    'int64_t':          xpt.Type.Tags.int64,
> > +    'uint8_t':              xpt.Type.Tags.uint8,
> > +    'uint16_t':     xpt.Type.Tags.uint16,
> > +    'uint32_t':      xpt.Type.Tags.uint32,
> > +    'uint64_t': xpt.Type.Tags.uint64,
> 
> What's up with the goofy formatting here?

I have no idea, my best guess is that I screwed it up somehow and didn't notice because of screen reader not being setup to read whitespace by default, and of course that I forgot to check manually :(
(Assignee)

Comment 4

5 years ago
Created attachment 648782 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v2

make whitespace nicer.
Attachment #648761 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #648761 - Flags: review?(khuey)
Attachment #648782 - Flags: review?(khuey)
Attachment #648782 - Flags: review?(khuey) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 5

5 years ago
landed https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/4bdc7b03597e
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4bdc7b03597e
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla17
Somehow the goofy formatting got landed :(
(Assignee)

Comment 8

5 years ago
ugh
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e3422c4a00b4
Ah, can we back this out please?  This will break what I have in bug 579517.  This will be fixed when those patches land.
Sigh.  I think I'll have to rebase my work on top of this.  :(
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e3422c4a00b4
(Assignee)

Comment 12

5 years ago
(In reply to Ehsan Akhgari [:ehsan] from comment #9)
> Ah, can we back this out please?  This will break what I have in bug 579517.
> This will be fixed when those patches land.

if you haven't already rebased on top of it I guess so.
(Assignee)

Comment 13

5 years ago
(In reply to Ehsan Akhgari [:ehsan] from comment #10)
> Sigh.  I think I'll have to rebase my work on top of this.  :(

sorry, I didn't respond earlier I was out all afternoon.
No problem, turns out that this doesn't hurt my work :-)
Blocks: 783609
Blocks: 783615
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.