795504 - Remove usages of PR_STATIC_CALLBACK from the tree

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: General, defect)

Description

[(no longer active)]

PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(x) is just static x.  No reason to use it.

Comment 1

[Abhishek Potnis [:avp]]

Hi,

I would like to work on this bug. Could you please guide me to get started on it ? Which
must be the files that need to be edited ?


Thanks.

Comment 2

[Isaac Aggrey [:isaac]]

I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries in this mentored bug by trying to help, especially since Ehsan have more to add, but bug 789847 was a bit similar.

(In reply to Abhishek Potnis [:abhishekp] from comment #1)
> I would like to work on this bug. Could you please guide me to get started
> on it ? Which
> must be the files that need to be edited ?

(1) MXR, Mozilla's (source code) cross reference, can list all locations of PR_STATIC_CALLBACK: https://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ident?i=PR_STATIC_CALLBACK

(2) Do _not_ edit any files (e.g., prtypes.h) in the nsprpub or security/nss directories since those are from upstream projects.

(3) Replace each usage of:
  
    PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(type)

with

    static type

, where type is the text/value used in the macro. In other words, something like 

    PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(PLDHashOperator) 

should be replaced with

    static PLDHASHOperator

Comment 3

[(no longer active)]

Isaac is right on!  Also, you can see <https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build> if you've never built Firefox before.  Please let us know if you need help.

Comment 4

[Abhishek Potnis [:avp]]

Hi,

Thanks for your helping me get started. I have found some occurrences of PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(bool) and PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(void), so should they be replaced as static bool and static void respectively ?


Thanks.

Comment 5

[(no longer active)]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Thanks for your helping me get started. I have found some occurrences of
> PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(bool) and PR_STATIC_CALLBACK(void), so should they be
> replaced as static bool and static void respectively ?

Yes.

Comment 6

[Abhishek Potnis [:avp]]

Attachment: Removed usages of PR_STATIC_CALLBACK from the tree

Comment 7

[(no longer active)]

Comment on attachment 669169 [details] [diff] [review]
Removed usages of PR_STATIC_CALLBACK from the tree

Looks great, thanks!

Comment 8

[(no longer active)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/eda5d1791fb7

Comment 9

[Ed Morley [:emorley]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/eda5d1791fb7